Quote:
|
Originally Posted by notabook
Fire alone can?t bring down a modern skyscraper friend, this is confirmed. So the only thing you could have been referring to in 9/11 then is that no modern skyscrapers have been in such a situation as getting slammed by two jets full of delicious fuel. No amount of nut sucking or dick stroking you do is going to change what you meant, so you might as well stop it. Or don?t, it?s up to you.
|
Agreed it is up to me. And I know what I meant and said what I meant. The fact that you have convinced yourself that no modern skyscrapper can be bought down by fire simply means you cannot accept what I mean so you believe what you want it to mean. Your delusions are the issue. Not my statement.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by notabook
And the reason that they didn?t suffer a similar fate? Magic? Delicious cock sundae?s protected them from structural damage, but the cock sundae just didn?t quite cover up all of building #7? Yeah that sounds about as logical as what FEMA said eh?
|
Have been through this already. Refer previous posts.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by notabook
Did you really just say that about the sun?? Our sun is a type of star. OH WAIT, don?t respond back quite yet faggoteer! Our sun is a yellow dwarf, and because of other yellow dwarfs THAT WE?VE OBSERVED we *think* that our sun will follow the same eventual life cycle and eventually expand and vaporize most of the terrestrial planets. Now, here?s the thing little guy: scientists have OBSERVED other yellow dwarfs that have expanded, which is why they can make the assertion that one day our sun will eventually do the same thing. My dear faggot, we have NEVER OBSERVED A MODERN SKYSCRAPPER falling down because of intense fire, so your stupid fucking quote is about as accurate as I am taking a piss.
|
Yes I did say that about the sun and given the distance of stars from Earth and the size of yellow dwarf stars I would be impressed that we have directly observed the life cycle of yellow dwarf stars. That aside and if you wish to try and play this game then okay here we go again.
'I have observed buildings and have evidence of other buildings destroyed by fire ergo all buildings can be destroyed by fire' is the same as saying 'I have not observed modern skyscrappers destroyed by fire and have no evidence of modern skyscrappers destroyed by fire ergo no modern skyscrappers can be destroyed by fire'.
Observational assumptions based on what has happened or equally based on what has not happened is not quite the evidence or confirmation that you seem to think it is. For you to understand this you need to abandon your prejudice and preconceptions and actually think it through logically.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by notabook
-And let me you I?ve hit the ceiling before when I?ve pissed if that tells you my accuracy.
|
Your standards of hygiene are on a par with your standard of logical analysis
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by notabook
I can?t provide hardcore proof, just circumstantial evidence. Kind of like the Scott Peterson trial, you know the one, where a man was sentenced to death with no real evidence? Yeah, it?s kinda like that. Kinda.
|
So 'modern skyscrappers cannot be destroyed by fire' is not hardcore proof? So why the fuck do you keep quoting it like it was?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by notabook
Already stated previously, etc. Building #7 was further away from WTC than many other buildings. Many other buildings caught fire and suffered damage from falling debris, none magically fell like building #7 did, which means obviously that Gamara used his hard shell to deflect the debris and intense heat from the other buildings but his shell just wasn?t quite big enough to protect #7. Fucking Gamara, I hate that guy.
|
Again have already answered this. Try and respond with intelligence rather than using the word 'magic' or references to 'Gamera' of whom I have never heard and suspect that I do not wish to either.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by notabook
I understand that the reasons that FEMA gave are completely unsubstantiated, which leads me to believe that building #7 collapsing was setup in advance.
|
So the reasons given are completely unsubstantiated and leads you to believe the collapsing was setup in advance. Why? There is no linkage between the two statements.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by notabook
Does this mean that the government was behind 9-11? No.
|
Again big of you
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by notabook
Does this mean that a select group of people knew about 9-11 in advance? Probable.
|
What like say the hi-jackers perhaps?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by notabook
As for conspiracy theories being the new religion, that?s a bunch of shit. It?s healthy to question the answers you are given.
|
I agree its healthy. So far I have questioned your intial statements and virtually every answer you have given and find them all wanting. Your response is to ignore the points raised and indulge in tedious abuse.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by notabook
Religion on the other hand is usually never a good thing. How many people have died because of religion? Compare that number to how many have died because they delve in conspiracy. Get back to me when you have the numbers faggot. =)
|
Millions have died over the centuries in the cause of various religions. Excluding suicides (you know the Gov/Aliens/Giant Lizards are coming to get me but I'll thwart their evil plans aargh!) I would say roughly zero people have died in the name of conspiracy. In short religion is taken far more seriously.This should tell you something about the relevant merits of conspiricy theories compared to religious ones.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by notabook
By the way, I really love that big word you used there friend, fulminate. I like it! You may be a faggot but that word makes up for it, god DAMN I love that fucking word.
|
The variation in font size and the urge to capitilize - is that the equivalent of writing in green ink?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by notabook
Latent homosexuality? I?m a full blown queer (when I want to be). I call people (and others) faggots because I can. I?m a big believer in this magical thing called FREE SPEECH. Uh oh, there I go capitalizing again for your benefit. Oh I?m so silly! Tee hee, tee hee, oh shut the fuck up you stupid faggot and go back to sucking some cock.
|
You call people faggots because you can okay I get that. Its dull but okay. Just curious though what do you mean by '(and others)'. People we have covered so who else do you call faggots? Aliens? Your invisible friend perhaps. It would explain a lot if you helped out with this one