N worries, not used to you being light hearted....Disco08 said:Oh sorry, I thought ignoring questions was acceptable in this thread.
FWIW it was just a light-hearted comment in keeping with the mood at the time.
N worries, not used to you being light hearted....Disco08 said:Oh sorry, I thought ignoring questions was acceptable in this thread.
FWIW it was just a light-hearted comment in keeping with the mood at the time.
Azza said:http://www.theage.com.au/tv/Documentary/911-Explosive-Evidence-4313104.html
Brodders17 said:i gave up on this thread a couple of weeks ago, can anyone give a brief rundown of what I have missed?
Brodders17 said:i gave up on this thread a couple of weeks ago, can anyone give a brief rundown of what I have missed?
Not much, the theorists keep guessing, hypothesing, insinuating, clutching at straws ie anything other than coming up with any evidence/proof.Brodders17 said:i gave up on this thread a couple of weeks ago, can anyone give a brief rundown of what I have missed?
tigertim said:Not much, the theorists keep guessing, hypothesing, insinuating, clutching at straws ie anything other than coming up with any evidence/proof.
But the realists are blind to the conspiracy!
Disco08 said:It's mostly experts giving their opinions on the WTC collapses.
Disco08 said:I don't know what you've seen and haven't seen.
Disco08 said:Did you watch any of the doco Azza linked to Tim?
So they seemed, yes.Disco08 said:Wasn't the first part all based on WTC7? Not many bland "AIA members" either. Most were highly credentialled experts in the specific areas being examined.