Was 9/11 the biggest scam of the century?

[Mr Aoun]

Originally Posted by Abu Ruman

Are you telling me you've never heard of a gas line?

I'm not that stupid not to have heard of gaslines. But it's the first time i hear it as a theory that there was enough gas that burned long enough that weakened the fat steal structures to such an extent that it caused them to crumble. This to me sounds like a theory and you have shown no proof of it.

Answer Geagea and i'll be happy. Keep the moon landing story to the side, it's got nothing to do with 9/11.

[Abu Ruman]

Originally Posted by Mr Aoun

I'm not that stupid not to have heard of gaslines. But it's the first time i hear it as a theory that there was enough gas that burned long enough that weakened the fat steal structures to cause them to crumble. This to me sounds like a theory and you have shown no proof of it.

Answer Geagea and i'll be happy. Keep the moon landing story to the side, it's got nothing to do with 9/11.

Me bring proof?? LOOOOOOL

You people are the theoreticians suggesting that something purely speculative took place!

Thus, the burden of proof is upon you. I only suggested the gas-lines as a hypothetical contradiction to your outlandish conjecture. The burden of proof is still upon you.

You cannot throw out radical hypotheses and then at the same time be the ones demanding evidence.

What a joke.

[Abu Ruman]

And the moon landing theory has everything to do with this: a manifestation of the great lengths people's imaginations will take them.

The moon landing being a hoax is just as likely as this theory of yours.

Let me re-stress: a theory.

[GeaGea SkyWalkeR]

Originally Posted by Abu Ruman

Me bring proof?? LOOOOOOL

You people are the theoreticians suggesting that something purely speculative took place!

Thus, the burden of proof is upon you. I only suggested the gas-lines as a hypothetical contradiction to your outlandish conjecture. The burden of proof is still upon you.

You cannot throw out radical hypotheses and then at the same time be the ones demanding evidence.

What a joke.

At the end of the day . You know nothing for sure, All you really know is that some Muslim guys are pissed that the Americans are free so they decided to hijack 2 planes and fly them into buildings,

Who said this, The US Administration, Why can't they be lying. Why are you so convinced simply because they said it, Who are they, What makes there word so credible, Ask yourself the question you will ask if someone directly attacked you, Get to the bottom of it, Intelligent people seem to turn into tree stumps when the government tosses them a fairy tale,

3amma if Fox said the Vatican did it people won't question it,

[Mr Aoun]

Originally Posted by Abu Ruman

Me bring proof?? LOOOOOOL

You people are the theoreticians suggesting that something purely speculative took place!

Thus, the burden of proof is upon you. I only suggested the gas-lines as a hypothetical contradiction to your outlandish conjecture. The burden of proof is still upon you.

You cannot throw out radical hypotheses and then at the same time be the ones demanding evidence.

What a joke.

The joke's on YOU son. And so is the onus of proof. The ridiculous speculative hypothesis is that 2 planes caused three buildings to implode. You have NOT proven how that happened, no scientific evidence what so ever to prove that 2 planes can implode 3 buildings. All i've said is IT'S NOT POSSIBLE and all you said is IT IS POSSIBLE. Since you're theorizing that 2 planes CAN implode a building, my challenge to you is PROVE IT.

Simple fact is, you can't.

[Abu Ruman]

Originally Posted by GeaGea SkyWalkeR

At the end of the day . You know nothing for sure, All you really know is that some Muslim guys are pissed that the Americans are free so they decided to hijack 2 planes and fly them into buildings

No.

Who said this, The US Administration, Why can't they be lying. Why are you so convinced simply because they said it, Who are they, What makes there word so credible, Ask yourself the question you will ask if someone directly attacked you, Get to the bottom of it, Intelligent people seem to turn into tree stumps when the government tosses them a fairy tale,

Jeez, I dont know.....maybe because the U.S. administration isnt the only source suggesting this?

[GeaGea SkyWalkeR]

Originally Posted by Abu Ruman

No.



Jeez, I dont know.....maybe because the U.S. administration isnt the only source suggesting this?

If i spread a rumor at a high level, Then other's continue this rumor.


Dose it make what was said more credible simply because i have installed a few amplifiers down the line.

Dose the rumor become truth.

[Abu Ruman]

Originally Posted by Mr Aoun

The joke's on YOU son. And so is the onus of proof. The ridiculous speculative hypothesis is that 2 planes caused three buildings to implode. You have NOT proven how that happened, no scientific evidence what so ever to prove that 2 planes can implode 3 buildings. All i've said is IT'S NOT POSSIBLE and all you said is IT IS POSSIBLE. Since you're theorizing that 2 planes CAN implode a building, my challenge to you is PROVE IT.

Simple fact is, you can't.

Ya, well, the thing is I have footage + infinite testimonies confirming that two physically existing aircrafts crashed into those buildings that day.

So no, very bad comparison. Not even close.

It was a very nice try though. Very moving.

[Mr Aoun]

Originally Posted by GeaGea SkyWalkeR

At the end of the day . You know nothing for sure, All you really know is that some Muslim guys are pissed that the Americans are free so they decided to hijack 2 planes and fly them into buildings,

Who said this, The US Administration, Why can't they be lying. Why are you so convinced simply because they said it, Who are they, What makes there word so credible, Ask yourself the question you will ask if someone directly attacked you, Get to the bottom of it, Intelligent people seem to turn into tree stumps when the government tosses them a fairy tale,

3amma if Fox said the Vatican did it people won't question it,

Let's, for discussion's sake, keep the political ramifications, incentives and motivations out of this. We can assume desert arabs that were binge drinking in a florida strip club the night before flew those planes... it doesn't matter if it was arabs, mongolians, remote controlled or little alian mice from the planet Zandorgon that flew those planes into the buildings.

What we're looking for is scientific evidence. Scientific evidence that 2 planes can implode 3 buildings. So far no real scientific has been put forth to prove it, and logically speaking, it is much more likely that controlled demolitions made those buildings collapse. We're asking to bring forth the SCIENTIFIC evidence.

[Abu Ruman]

Originally Posted by GeaGea SkyWalkeR

If spread a rumor at a high level, Then other's continue this rumor.


Dose it make what was said more credible simply because i have installed a few amplifiers down the line.

Buddy, its very very simple: you dont have evidence. Dead end.

There is nothing opaque about this. If you dont have proof, then its a shut-case.

I'd really like to open a thread on the moon-landing now. This is very exciting. The proponents of the moon-landing hoax theory also make 'scientific' arguments, suggesting [logically speaking] how no one could have landed on the moon.

I can post it if you want.