the random gif thread

[DemonGeminiX]

[DemonGeminiX]

[DemonGeminiX]

[PorkChopSandwiches]

[Hal-9000]

there you go with that "out of control" again - they did not burn out of control, brotha. they burned uncontrolled. even the official garbage isnt that careless, all of the verbiage says uncontrolled. so please enough with the intellectual dishonesty of attempting to call the fires out of control.


but go ahead, keep calling it a severe out of control blaze



Sorry bro but if you're going to try and rebut something, at least try to make it on a technical basis (even though we all know none exists) because otherwise you're just playing wild speculation to support the offical story in some way shape or form because its just GOT to be true (if only because your worldview maintains this must be true)



and "if only because of the timing"....wha? seriously?


the storyline makes no sense because of the timing of them PULLING 7 at Silverstein's direction?


yeah, ok, I'll bite - why much much later - because they had to sit there and ask someone with actual authority on the operation how to proceed since the main target failed to be hit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and thus had NO reason to fall!!! well we cant have such an extensive operation and leave the main target unfulfilled, can we? Pull it down anyway, the public will believe whatever we tell them, and they wont question the official report barely even mentioning 7, and stopping its analysis as soon as the buildings began to fall, leaving no real technical explanation to actually support the wild story they put forth.


I will maintain that the damning evidence in the SEC's investigations in building 7 were the main target. It is the only thing that matches up with flight 93 getting sunk into the ground instead of making it to its target. The people breached the cockpit and were thus able to fight the remote control for the plane's flight direction - (remember the tech was patented Feb 2001 and was present on the Boeing planes that hit the towers, and that implementation the pilot could fight the remote control. This "issue" was resolved in the airbus a320 model that was taken down in France, which is why there is no way in hell that copilot crashed that plane.) That pretty much says they do not have a guarantee 7 gets hit - and if 7 does not get hit, then we find out what happens if the plane hits another building and does jack shit to it....the entire thing falls apart, that's why the planes were on takedown order.

Or are you disputing the remote controlled flight of the planes that hit 1 & 2, precisely striking datacenters owned by the same fuggin company (Marsh & McLennan) on entirely different floors of both buildings? My my what a coincidence, the insurance company that has files on certain things related, sustains direct hits by both planes?!?! From amateur pilots with the tiniest amount of hours under their belt?

Or is that juuuuust some coincidence in your head? All of these damning bits of evidence - all just coincidence?





I have to admit, it would be much harder to discern were it not for the caught red handed smoking gun of building 7.



I've done my homework on this - Hal, the Official story has all the same chance of being true as that old man in the #28 making it to the end zone in a real live NFL game (a modern one, not 50 years ago when he played)

Okay this is my last post on the subject, we have a section for this topic and I completely regret asking the question.

they did not burn out of control, brotha. [I]they burned uncontrolled.

If you're going to split hairs on the two terms above, we can not (and I will not) discuss anything further with you on the subject.

And this sort of phrase is insulting to me and the question I asked.

...please enough with the intellectual dishonesty of attempting to call

Do you understand that? You are insulting me, not responding to a query. I only want to know why you have an opinion on a subject out of respect for your point of view. You've lost that now (from me), because of your responses and methodology composing a response. In fact, it's so upsetting, if we were in person I would likely hit you because of your tone and word choices. And in 10 years of posting, I've made that statement exactly ONCE.

and finally ...

Sorry bro but if you're going to try and rebut something, at least try to make it on a technical basis

A building was in an area where two other large buildings collapsed. Building in question was on fire for over eight hours...these factors MAY HAVE INFLUENCED what happened to it. But you see...I don't know because I'm only looking at the same evidence that you are and drawing a conclusion. At least one of us can admit that and not turn venomous and insulting when another person disagrees with A THEORY.

I used caps lock because I'm angry.....never again bro. See ya in the funny pages

[Hal-9000]

this post has nothing to do with the above, just need to get the thread back on track





..

[Pony]

Do you know what that wall reminds me of?

[Hal-9000]

no.

[deebakes]

red's lack of ears?

[DemonGeminiX]

[DemonGeminiX]

[DemonGeminiX]

[DemonGeminiX]

[DemonGeminiX]

Today's moment of zen...

[PorkChopSandwiches]