* Hates US * PROVES IARNROD CORRECT, fails to provide one shred of evidence AS I PREDICTED: 9/11 was proven physically impossible to be an inside job.

[George Plimpton]

On Dec 18, 6:18 am, * Hates US * the admitted anal-sex craving fiend

I do have problems.

We know that, * Hates US *, but the question is when oh when will you
EVER come up with at least ONE shred of evidence for your physically
impossible claims?

This is really funny. Here we have two crazed fruitcake far-left
idiots, each accusing the other of being right-wing! One crazed
fruitcake far-left idiot buys into the lunacy that 9/11 was an "inside
job"; the other crazed fruitcake far-left idiot doesn't buy into that
particular bit of far-left lunacy, although he buys into virtually all
the rest of it. Overall, both of them buy into enough irrational
far-left bullshit that it is very reasonable to call both of them crazed
far-left fruitcake idiots.

It's funny to see them pissing and shitting themselves trying to call
one another right-wing - just hilarious. Both of them have very low
time value - I mean, barely minimum wage - so naturally they can spend
untold hours clawing and scratching in their left-wing shit hole. But
they're both idiot leftists - not in doubt.

[Scout]

On Dec 23, 3:55 pm, * Hates US * the rightarded Mossad counter disinfo

"Structural engineers who designed the Twin Towers carried out studies in
the mid-1960s to
determine how the buildings would fare if hit by large jetliners. In all
cases the studies
concluded that the Towers would survive the impacts and fires caused by
the jetliners."

ONLY contradictory facts have been presented, * Hates US *. The
buildings fell, thus proving the structural engineers wrong.
Or are you now insisting the building srae still standing, but are
invisible? BWAHAHAHHAHAHAAAA!!!
Let's watch * Hates US * try to wiggle out of his latest lunacy!

And let's be clear, any such "study" is going to be based on a huge number
of assumptions. From the structural damage done, to the time it takes to put
out all fires. If even a few of those assumptions are incorrect then that
means the real world results may not match the study conclusions.

Also just because such a study was done does NOT mean they actually
evaluated each and every possible failure mode. If they overlooked such a
mode, or dismissed it as insignificant, but in reality that was a key part
of the cause, then again the study results would be incorrect.

Plus let's not forget that the size of the plane was much bigger than used,
the impact speed probably higher, the fuel load a lot higher, and the fires
were out of control.

Heck, I seem to recall engineers saying a certain ship was unsinkable.

They can be wrong.