THERE IS NO EVIDENCE! - Page 3

Hanso · #21 06-24-2009, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George_Bush

There is evidence that the Twin Towers collapsed due to controlled explosives.

There is?!! In that case...RUN, RUN FOR YOUR LIVES

IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!

EireEngineer · #22 10-09-2009, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueAngel

There is no evidence that the Twin Towers collapsed due to the impact of aircraft.

Split hairs much? It was the resulting fire, not the impact, that caused the collapse.

BlueAngel · #23 10-09-2009, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EireEngineer

Split hairs much? It was the resulting fire, not the impact, that caused the collapse.

The impact of the aircraft is what has been reported as having precipitated the fires.

So, no, I don't split hairs much.

EireEngineer · #24 10-09-2009, 11:14 PM

You should upgrade to Mozilla Firefox. It has a built in spell checker, which helps us left brained folk out a ton. If it wasnt fire, what do you think brought down the towers, out of curiosity?

BlueAngel · #25 10-09-2009, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EireEngineer

You should upgrade to Mozilla Firefox. It has a built in spell checker, which helps us left brained folk out a ton. If it wasnt fire, what do you think brought down the towers, out of curiosity?

Wired demolitions.

The planes crashing into the buildings and bursting into flames would be presented as evidence for the collapse of the towers.

EireEngineer · #26 10-10-2009, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueAngel

The impact of the aircraft is what has been reported as having percipitated the fires.

So, no, I don't split hairs much.

Do you mean Precipitated, Ms impeccable.

BlueAngel · #27 10-11-2009, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EireEngineer

Do you mean Precipitated, Ms impeccable.

I don't spilt hairs over spelling, but, apparently, you do because that's all you've got.

My godoness.

You hvea casaued my punishemnt and donwfall bty poiningting out that mis-splleing.

What sallh I do?

Maybe go back and check all of your posts for grammatical errors?

Nah.

Beter things to do.

I'm certain I've conveyed that which I intended whehter I mis-speclled precipitated or not.

BlueAngel · #28 10-11-2009, 11:33 PM

I corrected my original post which contained the mis-spelled word PERCIPITATED to PRECIPITATED.

Which, thank goodness, you pointed out

Does this help you ot undrestand the contnet of my post any bettrte?

If not, let me konw and I'll see what else I can od.

I would apprciate it, if you would kindly read every psot I've written on the froum and let me know if there are nay oher gramamtical eroris.

Thaningk yoi in adavance.

BlueAngel · #29 10-12-2009, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EireEngineer

Split hairs much? It was the resulting fire, not the impact, that caused the collapse.

Your logic/theory is flawed.

If not for the impact there would have been no fires.

albie · #30 10-12-2009, 04:17 AM

The impact would probably have contributed to the weakening of the structure.
I've seen no compelling evidence that 911 was a controlled demolition. And I HAVE looked into it btw.