|
bearcat648 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
That would be true, of course, for the official theory as well, so what we have to do is go on best evidence. The demolition/incendiary theory is the one that is, by a very significant factor, most in accord with known scientific laws.
danieleriskay (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I like Hoffman as a speaker. He speaks a bit quickly, but I think he's clear.
ToddBudreau (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Hoffman is probably the best scientific researcher into 9/11. Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage are great, but Hoffman is better (terrible public speaker though).
These people are such patriots. I hope in 50 years we recognize them as such.
zoskiaist (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
JIM YOU ARE MY HERO!
zoskiaist (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Read David Griffin's 'Debunking 911 Debunking to see how obvious the Inside Job scenario becomes once the facts are studied. Use your own common sense too. when the off. story says, Flt 93 crashed into the ground yet wreckage was spread for miles and miles common sense tells us these two things are incompatible
Mohammadman (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
None of your research; None of your supporters; None of your volunteer engineers, architects, etc; No one you know is able to describe or measure the nature or level of devastation *inside* either tower - at the points or floors of impact. These are the facts and they are is irrefutable.
All ct's must admit they push theories they are themselves ignorant of.
Thrashaero (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
everyone click the 'spam' link that is next to every one of Pk's posts. because that's all he does.
pterodaniel (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
no money gained if i talk about it
it is so obvious what happened on 911 its hard to fathom that it actually happened.
JohnboyWalnut (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Holey moley!! Another conspiracy theorist. Conspirtacy theorists must make really good money. That's the only reason I can think of as to why there's so many of them.
hdog505 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
The NIST Report "does not actually include the structural behavior of the Tower(s) after conditions for collapse initiation were reached."
'Nuff said. |
