The 9/11 photo they took FIVE years to publish......
Feb 29th 2008, 5:30 pm
#61
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Mar 2007
Location: Abu Dhabi
Posts: 3,968
Re: The 9/11 photo they took FIVE years to publish......
[QUOTE=Eva;6000033]
your sooo not sorry at all:curse:
Oh my God...........
I'm enjoying a quiet chat with Eva, felt tired, went to bed (forgot to kiss Eva night-night - apologies).......... and it all kicks off! And I missed it! Or is it still going on?'
Hahaahahaha The Dean, you should know by now-I DON'T DO QUIET!.
No it ain't still going on.So, Gareth I apologise to you for my ramblings and
Arbroath Abroad-I apologise to you also-I am very very sorry for calling you a Rangers Fan-that's a terrible thing to say about anyone..............
I'm enjoying a quiet chat with Eva, felt tired, went to bed (forgot to kiss Eva night-night - apologies).......... and it all kicks off! And I missed it! Or is it still going on?'
Hahaahahaha The Dean, you should know by now-I DON'T DO QUIET!.
No it ain't still going on.So, Gareth I apologise to you for my ramblings and
Arbroath Abroad-I apologise to you also-I am very very sorry for calling you a Rangers Fan-that's a terrible thing to say about anyone..............
Feb 29th 2008, 5:31 pm
#62
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,646
Re: The 9/11 photo they took FIVE years to publish......
pmsl..............
Feb 29th 2008, 5:31 pm
#63
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,028
Re: The 9/11 photo they took FIVE years to publish......
[QUOTE=Eva;6000033]
In my book its the WORST thing you can call anyone... I cant even bring myself to type such a disgusting word.....
Oh my God...........
I'm enjoying a quiet chat with Eva, felt tired, went to bed (forgot to kiss Eva night-night - apologies).......... and it all kicks off! And I missed it! Or is it still going on?'
Hahaahahaha The Dean, you should know by now-I DON'T DO QUIET!.
No it ain't still going on.So, Gareth I apologise to you for my ramblings and
Arbroath Abroad-I apologise to you also-I am very very sorry for calling you a Rangers Fan-that's a terrible thing to say about anyone..............
I'm enjoying a quiet chat with Eva, felt tired, went to bed (forgot to kiss Eva night-night - apologies).......... and it all kicks off! And I missed it! Or is it still going on?'
Hahaahahaha The Dean, you should know by now-I DON'T DO QUIET!.
No it ain't still going on.So, Gareth I apologise to you for my ramblings and
Arbroath Abroad-I apologise to you also-I am very very sorry for calling you a Rangers Fan-that's a terrible thing to say about anyone..............
Feb 29th 2008, 5:32 pm
#64
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,646
Re: The 9/11 photo they took FIVE years to publish......
Feb 29th 2008, 5:33 pm
#65
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Mar 2007
Location: Abu Dhabi
Posts: 3,968
Re: The 9/11 photo they took FIVE years to publish......
Feb 29th 2008, 5:35 pm
#68
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Thread Starter
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,553
Re: The 9/11 photo they took FIVE years to publish......
I obviously didn't intend my previous post to be a comprehensive rebuttal, merely to point out how easy it is to knock gaping holes (sic) in their arguments, especially since they seem to be deliberately omitting basic but inconvenient scientific evidence (such as the temperature at which steel begins to weaken).
There's a vast amount of bad science in that site, but sadly most people don't know the difference between good science and bad science and are happy to be spoonfed the bad sort because it supports exciting conspiracy theories.
It was. It was seriously damaged by debris from the main tower collapses - quote, "damage to the southwest corner from the 8th to 18th floor, a large vertical gash on the center-bottom extending at least ten floors, and other damage as high as the 18th floor."
It also caught fire, and burned for much of the afternoon. In the end, the structural weaknesses caused by the debris impact damage led to its collapse.
Out of interest, why did you think that nothing hit it?
There's a vast amount of bad science in that site, but sadly most people don't know the difference between good science and bad science and are happy to be spoonfed the bad sort because it supports exciting conspiracy theories.
It was. It was seriously damaged by debris from the main tower collapses - quote, "damage to the southwest corner from the 8th to 18th floor, a large vertical gash on the center-bottom extending at least ten floors, and other damage as high as the 18th floor."
It also caught fire, and burned for much of the afternoon. In the end, the structural weaknesses caused by the debris impact damage led to its collapse.
Out of interest, why did you think that nothing hit it?
And would debris from the twin towers have caused that? This is all a bit contradictory - WTC7 was furthest away from the twin towers which collpased vertically downwards, more or less.
Pause for further analysis.
Feb 29th 2008, 5:36 pm
#69
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,646
Re: The 9/11 photo they took FIVE years to publish......
Clyde.....................there you go!
Feb 29th 2008, 5:37 pm
#71
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,646
Re: The 9/11 photo they took FIVE years to publish......
Its the ghost of Johnny Thompson
)
Feb 29th 2008, 5:39 pm
#74
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,646
Re: The 9/11 photo they took FIVE years to publish......
Mine are a middle aged (34) firm pair thanks................