Robin-H Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 Genuine, honest damage, enough to cause a collapse would be gradual, unseemly, uneven. This is a controlled demolition. Just watch. You're still not providing any evidence at all, only that the building didn't collapse the way you think it should have. That isn't evidence. Again, read the report I posted. It clearly explains why the building collapsed, and why it collapsed the way it did. What part of the report do you find to be unconvincing? Why is it not possible for the events to have happened as outlined in the report? Where is the counter evidence that demonstrates why their conclusions must be wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 You're still not providing any evidence at all, only that the building didn't collapse the way you think it should have. That isn't evidence. Again, read the report I posted. It clearly explains why the building collapsed, and why it collapsed the way it did. What part of the report do you find to be unconvincing? Why is it not possible for the events to have happened as outlined in the report? Where is the counter evidence that demonstrates why their conclusions must be wrong? The report at best is a group of peoples sincere opinions as to why it collapsed, at worst its a group of people covering it up. There are many structural engineers and demolition workers that believe building 7, even the two main towers were controlled demolitions. Save Sheffield forum some band width by not speaking of that report again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacko92 Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 The report at best is a group of peoples sincere opinions as to why it collapsed, at worst its a group of people covering it up. There are many structural engineers and demolition workers that believe building 7, even the two main towers were controlled demolitions. Save Sheffield forum some band width by not speaking of that report again. The "evidence" you cite is at best a misunderstanding of science or at worse deliberately misleading mischief to con the gullible and deluded. I've asked you three times now why you find more comfort believing it was an inside job rather than accept Al Qaida don't like us. You haven't answered. You wilfully refuse to engage in anything you can't explain or understand which is pretty much everything. You display zero insight and no integrity. It's you that Sheffield Forum needs saving from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaati Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 The insults can stop. There is an ignore feature that you can add people in your Control Panel. I strongly suggest you use this if you can't get along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacko92 Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 (edited) The insults can stop. There is an ignore feature that you can add people in your Control Panel. I strongly suggest you use this if you can't get along. The ignore function only allows me to block a user. Other users that haven't used the function can still see the nonsense they have posted and that nonsense should be called. It would be better if you as moderators demanded those that post actually post things that are well researched and they do not just parrot junk they clearly don't understand anyway. This isn't a conspiracy theory website so I'm not sure why you let such junk remain unchecked. Conspiracy buffs have a duty to report the evidence they question with integrity. This is not the case here. Edited September 9, 2017 by Jacko92 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hackey lad Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 (edited) The ignore function only allows me to block a user. Other users that haven't used the function can still see the nonsense they have posted and that nonsense should be called. It would be better if you as moderators demanded those that post actually post things that are well researched and do not just parrot junk they clearly don't understand anyway. This isn't a conspiracy theory website so I'm not sure why you let such junk remain unchecked. some people may think you talk nonsense and just bully your point by name calling Maybe the best place for "conspiracy buffs " would be a conspiracy forum Edited September 9, 2017 by hackey lad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacko92 Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 some people may think you talk nonsense and just bully your point by name calling I don't really care what you or Alan or Mac think about me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hackey lad Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 I don't really care what you or Alan or Mac think about me! personally speaking , I think nothing of you but people can post what they think without the worry of name calling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 I've asked you three times now why you find more comfort believing it was an inside job rather than accept Al Qaida don't like us. You haven't answered. I don't believe that Osama Bin Laden from a cave in Afghanistan orchestrated such an event as 911. What strings did he pull to get NORAD commanders to stand down their fighter jets for instance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin-H Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 The ignore function only allows me to block a user. Other users that haven't used the function can still see the nonsense they have posted and that nonsense should be called. It would be better if you as moderators demanded those that post actually post things that are well researched and they do not just parrot junk they clearly don't understand anyway. This isn't a conspiracy theory website so I'm not sure why you let such junk remain unchecked. Conspiracy buffs have a duty to report the evidence they question with integrity. This is not the case here. Indeed. Rule 14 of the Sheffield Forum Rules. "14. You must only post contributions to the Website which are factually accurate or which are your genuinely held opinions based on true facts." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now