.:.:.:.:
RTTP
.
Mobile
:.:.:.:.
[
<--back
] [
Home
][
Pics
][
News
][
Ads
][
Events
][
Forum
][
Band
][
Search
]
full forum
|
bottom
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
Reply
[
login
]
SPAM Filter:
re-type this
(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
you are quoting a heck of a lot there.
[QUOTE]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] to reply to mattkings.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
message
[QUOTE="mattkings:1010535"][QUOTE="porphyria:1010392"]1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration DUH. If the planes had crashed at the very top of the each tower they might have withstood, it was the weight of multiple floors above each crash point, of course it's going to fall quickly with that much weight above. 2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution hahaha, okay, so how is a 100 floor building 'suppose' to collapse, into a nice neat pile easy to clean? 14. No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire Yeah, when was the last time two jetliners filled with fuel crash into the twin towers at 400-500mph+? oh wait, never. [/QUOTE] Stop using logic. Where arr da plane parts at de pentagon durrrrrrrrrrr [/QUOTE]
top
[
Vers. 0.12
][ 0.004 secs/8 queries][
refresh
][