pap

Hypothetical question. Out of the two, which would be more likely to crush you at freefall speed? 1) A 100kg block of concrete 2) 100kg of concrete dust

How do you think the military works? Or intelligence services? They conduct covert operations, do they not? The reason they're able to do so without widespread publication of their activities is down to a culture of secrecy and a hierarchical command structure. Besides, your entire post is predicated on the assumption that no-one has ever come forward to dispute the official account. They have. 9/11 has been an immutable fairy tale from the start. The 9/11 Commission was a whitewash - two commissioners quit in disgust. So ingrained was the narrative, that they did not even bother to update the number of hijackers for the Commission report, years after the event, despite at least six being alive. If they can't even get that one basic fact corrected, you have to wonder why.

Would it surprise you to learn that many of the people that helped establish the EU were former Nazis?

Credible? Still haven't got an explanation for the "super fuel" which turned entire buildings into dust. It's not paraffin and it isn't office furniture

Sort your tapatalk signatures out, solentstars.

Ah, the old "people design skyscrapers so they go down like a house of cards" theory Good luck explaining the bottom floors.

Indeed I have, and they got my vote. I have no expectation of them garnering enough support to get any seats, even under PR. However, I'm really not onboard with the EU project. I have a measure of sympathy with those that say that transferring power to Brussels or Berlin is treason. It certainly would have been 100 years ago.

19 hijackers, for one.

Ok then, so if jet fuel didn't burn for very long, what fuelled the fires to the point where they were able to melt steel? Office furniture?

Not only that, but the only reason the Commission even existed was because of intense pressure from families for an investigation, which up until that point, wasn't deemed necessary by the Bush administration. Why would it be? After all, the self-same agencies that failed again and again in the lead up to 9/11 miraculously managed to identify all 19 hijackers within 24 hours, still deemed the perpetrators, irrespective of the facts. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

Talking about footprints, a genuine 9/11 conspiracy would put you personally in a bad spot, wouldn't it? At best, your work would look like garnish. At worst, outright propaganda.

Some of the families aren't as insulted as you think. http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html

My theory is that you are not worth talking to on these issues. It's based on the evidence of all your posts before.

I reckon a large proportion of them are started by and propagated by intelligence agencies. Set up a strawman with just enough plausibility, get people onto it then stand back and watch the squabbling. The 9/11 crowd is an excellent example of this. People will argue planes vs no planes, controlled demolition vs nuke vs directed energy weapon. Cheney and neocons vs Mossad. People get so caught up in the meta that they lose sight of the big things they all agree on. I know you quipped in with "fuel, innit?" yesterday. Wasn't sure if that was a serious point; kerosene is what we call paraffin. As sir will know, it's used all over the world for heating and lighting purposes, and a story you don't hear is how paraffin heaters cause fires which turn concrete dwellings into fine dust, because they don't. Yet that's the explanation behind two of the world's largest buildings instantly becoming powder; that a load of paraffin on the top levels of WTC melted steel supports and brought the whole edifice down. My favourite nugget from the official narrative? Pancake theory. The idea that the dusty dispersed mass at the top of the towers somehow put more pressure on the base than the intact mass the buildings supported up until 9/11. Fúcking ridiculous; I laugh every time someone trots that out, especially when they whip out the NIST report. Broad strokes? My money is on a joint operation between hawkish elements of the US and Israeli administrations. The military industrial complex and Israel are the chief beneficiaries. Plus, there's always this:-

Ha, I voted for them in 2010, if you can believe it. I wrote this in 2011; haven't changed my opinion. http://frigsociety.com/2011/05/10/where-next-for-the-liberal-democrats/

Hmm. That's an interesting one. My theory is that you are not worth talking to on these issues. It's based on the evidence of all your posts before.

Then of course, there's "skint" Verbal. Ten minutes past the hour and he's already onto his first post of three. There's a fair chance that the other two will also appear in this thread, but don't worry, it'll always be a borrowed opinion, never one of his own. Ten past twelve? FFS. I've seen smackheads queueing outside the chemists for methadone with more patience

Fantastic pro-EU case you've put together there.

I don't ever remember slavishly arguing against the Lib Dems. It is amusing that "the party of in" could get wiped out.

Lib Dems braced for electoral annihilation. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/21/lib-dems-braced-for-wipeout-in-european-poll

Take it from me; if you're genuinely interested in this sort of thing, look somewhere else. When you've got the likes of aintforever feeling qualified to dismiss hundreds of man years of research with a simple one-liner, you know the debate is not going to get a fair hearing.

Pulis-era Stoke. We remember.

That's very flattering, Gemmel. Captain Edmund Blackadder should be an inspiration to us all.

I wonder how many millions have been spent on smearing UKIP? If you ever wanted an example of how "free" your media is, and how easy it is for a single message to be propagated everywhere, these elections fit the bill quite nicely.