Quote:
|
Originally Posted by notabook
Sure you did FetishTom, sure you did. You stated "Until 9/11. Because something 'has never happened' is not a guarantee or evidence that it 'will never happen'.", clearly implying that until 9/11, jets had never struck any large commercial modern building, which is true. However, Building #7 does NOT equal the WTC =)
|
No I didn't. My statement was directly in relation to your assertion that no modern skyscrapper had collapsed through fire which happen to occur on or as a result of the events on 9/11
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by notabook
Thanks FetishTom, was just trying to clear it up for people who have trouble reading such as yourself, I think I made it easier! Maybe not for you though  |
You are welcome.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by notabook
Hi again FetishTom! Here's the thing my dear gullible fellow: Buildings closer to the WTC than #7 did not suffer a similar fate. Some caught on fire, none suffered the 'horrendous' amounts of structual damage necessary to bring down a modern skyscrapper. Again, the other buildsing that caught fire were closer than #7, and did NOT suffer said needed horrendous damage.  |
Never said they suffered a similar fate.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by notabook
Hi FetishTom, you see, the problem there is that *no* modern skyscraper in history has collapsed from fire! Some of which burned with the same intensity that #7 did, for much longer periods. Several skyscrapers (taller than #7 as well) have burned for over 24 hours with the same intensity, and none fell.
|
To repeat. Just because something has 'never happened before' is not a guarantee or evidence that it 'will never happen'. I will quote you an example. The sun has never expanded and vaporised this planet. However this is not evidence that
this will never happen. The use of 'what has been the case' and extending it to 'this is the case and always will be the case' dribbling nonsense
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by notabook
Can?t really say anything here, with 97% of the evidence removed by the time the commissioned study was completed I really can?t blame them here. I?m just stating that anything they say as ?proof? is probably bunkus as with 97% of the evidence removed, that 3% must be the blood of Christ or some shit.
|
Then if we accept that 97% of the evidence is removed then any 'proof' you provide is equally bunkus
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by notabook
Already answered earlier FetishTom, I?m sure you read that though. Maybe not, so I?ll paste it again just for you buddy! Buildings closer to the WTC than #7 did not suffer a similar fate. Some caught on fire, none suffered the 'horrendous' amounts of structual damage necessary to bring down a modern skyscrapper. Again, the other buildsing that caught fire were closer than #7, and did NOT suffer said needed horrendous damage. |
Have already answered this. Just because building A did not catch fire does not mean building B cannot catch fire. Proximity of an item to an explosive event is a factor in the fate of said item but not the sole determining factor.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by notabook
People invented religion mainly as a way to explain things that they couldn't understand.
|
Correct. You cannot understand why building 7 collapsed. You therefore fulminate and seek answers in conspriacy theories. The same thinking underpins religious faith and conspiracy theorists. The need to have order and explain the unexplainable. Conspiracy theories are the new religion.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by notabook
No tom, I CAPITALIZE my words for people like YOU, who can?t spend the necessary time to READ what has been written. People like YOU skip over many words and sentences and just pick up certain words that they want to see, which is why I?ve had to type out this whole paragraph just for your benefit. Maybe you?ll have read everything I?ve typed out JUST FOR YOU this time. Or maybe you?ll just go suck some more cock you stupid faggot*.
|
You capitalize for the same reason you call me (and others) a faggot. Misplaced aggression due to fear and insecurity mixed with latent homosexuality.