ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags wtc7

Closed Thread
Old 3rd October 2010, 11:38 AM   #81
Tinfoil Hater
Graduate Poster
 
Tinfoil Hater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,436
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
I'll give you a hint. You go wrong about here:
how so?
Tinfoil Hater is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2010, 11:40 AM   #82
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,705
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
I'll give you a hint. You go wrong about here:
So, Can you present your theory?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2010, 12:12 PM   #83
cooperman
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 467
Originally Posted by Titanic Explorer View Post
how so?
The damage from the collapse of the towers did not play a role in the collapse of 7. All the tower collapses did was start "ordinary office fires" in building 7.
cooperman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2010, 12:18 PM   #84
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,705
Originally Posted by cooperman View Post
The damage from the collapse of the towers did not play a role in the collapse of 7. All the tower collapses did was start "ordinary office fires" in building 7.
And that was not a role?

__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2010, 12:34 PM   #85
AJM8125
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 20,736
I've yet to see any truther define what exactly a "normal office fire" is. Is there some sort of standard? I've worked in high-rise buildings for over 20 years (heck I even lived in one once) and can count on one hand how many times one actually caught fire.

Anyhow. Fires. Small. Uncontrolled. Grew.
AJM8125 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2010, 12:39 PM   #86
Disbelief
Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,612
Originally Posted by cooperman View Post
The damage from the collapse of the towers did not play a role in the collapse of 7. All the tower collapses did was start "ordinary office fires" in building 7.
If ordinary is one of the largest office fires ever, you are correct.
__________________
Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same?

Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman
Disbelief is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2010, 12:40 PM   #87
cantonear1968
Graduate Poster
 
cantonear1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,657
Originally Posted by Titanic Explorer View Post
'What about building 7' is the most common question truthers pose as 'proof' their delusions are valid. Is there an answer as brief as the question to silence these fools?
"What specifically, scientifically, do you find incorrect with the NIST Final Report on WTC7?"

It may not end it but it is funny to watch them hand wave past it when they can't answer that question because they haven't read it or even know it exists.
__________________
Can you people please stop not thinking? - Gorgonian

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
-Good luck America with President Trump
cantonear1968 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2010, 12:43 PM   #88
cantonear1968
Graduate Poster
 
cantonear1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,657
Originally Posted by cooperman View Post
The damage from the collapse of the towers did not play a role in the collapse of 7. All the tower collapses did was start "ordinary office fires" in building 7......
......on multiple floors and left to burn unchecked and unfought for 8 hours.

Truthers always leave out the most important parts!
__________________
Can you people please stop not thinking? - Gorgonian

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
-Good luck America with President Trump
cantonear1968 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2010, 12:43 PM   #89
cooperman
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 467
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
And that was not a role?

It was, but the same role could have been played by a screwed up copy of the new york times and a match.

The OP is very deceptive in claiming that damage caused by the towers collapse contributed to 7's collapse. It didn't. wtc7 was, according to NIST, destroyed by ordinary office fires. I know it is hard to adjust after years of claiming the collapse was caused by diesel fuel and a 10 storey gash, but that is the official story.

If you want to combat toofers saying "what about building 7?" then to mention damage from the wtc collapse is lying.
cooperman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2010, 12:44 PM   #90
AJM8125
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 20,736
Originally Posted by cooperman View Post
It was, but the same role could have been played by a screwed up copy of the new york times and a match.

The OP is very deceptive in claiming that damage caused by the towers collapse contributed to 7's collapse. It didn't. wtc7 was, according to NIST, destroyed by ordinary office fires. I know it is hard to adjust after years of claiming the collapse was caused by diesel fuel and a 10 storey gash, but that is the official story.

If you want to combat toofers saying "what about building 7?" then to mention damage from the wtc collapse is lying.
What started the fires in WTC7?
AJM8125 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2010, 12:46 PM   #91
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 25,236
Originally Posted by Titanic Explorer View Post
'What about building 7' is the most common question truthers pose as 'proof' their delusions are valid. Is there an answer as brief as the question to silence these fools? I tend to respnd with 'The towers fell, severely damaged building 7, a fire raged for hours , the building weakened, then collapsed, The end. Is there an even shorter answer one can give?
Why building 7 ?

That's one word shorter, and unanswerable. Sure, it will lead to a load of hot air debate, but there is no reason on FSM's earth why any conspirator might want to CD WTC7.
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2010, 12:46 PM   #92
cooperman
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 467
Originally Posted by cantonear1968 View Post
......on multiple floors and left to burn unchecked and unfought for 8 hours.

Truthers always leave out the most important parts!
Calm down. I am not disputing the extent of the fires. Do you agree that any structural damage caused by the collapse of the towers played no role in the collapse of building 7?
cooperman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2010, 12:47 PM   #93
cooperman
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 467
Originally Posted by AJM8125 View Post
What started the fires in WTC7?
I have already said what started them. Read my first post in this thread.
cooperman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2010, 12:49 PM   #94
cooperman
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 467
Originally Posted by AJM8125 View Post
I've yet to see any truther define what exactly a "normal office fire" is. Is there some sort of standard? I've worked in high-rise buildings for over 20 years (heck I even lived in one once) and can count on one hand how many times one actually caught fire.

Anyhow. Fires. Small. Uncontrolled. Grew.
Ordinary office fires means fuelled by office contents. The wtc towers had jet fuel fires, whereas wtc7 didn't.
cooperman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2010, 12:50 PM   #95
AJM8125
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 20,736
Originally Posted by cooperman View Post
I have already said what started them. Read my first post in this thread.
So the collapse of the towers played a role. Thanks.
AJM8125 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2010, 12:52 PM   #96
AJM8125
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 20,736
Originally Posted by cooperman View Post
Ordinary office fires means fuelled by office contents. The wtc towers had jet fuel fires, whereas wtc7 didn't.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukO3hENZ9zA

Are these "normal office fires"?
AJM8125 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2010, 12:53 PM   #97
cooperman
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 467
Originally Posted by AJM8125 View Post
So the collapse of the towers played a role. Thanks.
Yes, the collapse of the towers played a role in starting the fires.

Do you agree that the structural damage caused by the wtc towers hitting 7 played no role in wtc7's collapse?
cooperman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2010, 12:54 PM   #98
cooperman
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 467
Originally Posted by AJM8125 View Post
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukO3hENZ9zA

Are these "normal office fires"?
Yes.

What else were they fuelled by, if not office contents?
cooperman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2010, 12:55 PM   #99
AJM8125
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 20,736
Originally Posted by cooperman View Post
Yes, the collapse of the towers played a role in starting the fires.

Do you agree that the structural damage caused by the wtc towers hitting 7 played no role in wtc7's collapse?
Who's saying that?
AJM8125 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2010, 12:57 PM   #100
cooperman
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 467
Originally Posted by AJM8125 View Post
Who's saying that?
NIST say the damage played no role in the collapse. The OP of this thread claims the damage did play a role.

Do you agree with NIST?
cooperman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2010, 12:57 PM   #101
AJM8125
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 20,736
Originally Posted by cooperman View Post
Yes.

What else were they fuelled by, if not office contents?
So fire's left to burn all day and spread across multiple floors is a "normal office fire". I have my truther definition now. Thanks.
AJM8125 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2010, 12:59 PM   #102
AJM8125
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 20,736
Originally Posted by cooperman View Post
NIST say the damage played no role in the collapse. The OP of this thread claims the damage did play a role.

Do you agree with NIST?
The building was severely damaged, that's why it caught fire. Do I need you to define "severe damage" too?
AJM8125 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2010, 12:59 PM   #103
Disbelief
Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,612
Originally Posted by cooperman View Post
Ordinary office fires means fuelled by office contents. The wtc towers had jet fuel fires, whereas wtc7 didn't.
One of the largest office fires ever.
__________________
Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same?

Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman
Disbelief is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2010, 12:59 PM   #104
cooperman
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 467
Originally Posted by AJM8125 View Post
So fire's left to burn all day and spread across multiple floors is a "normal office fire". I have my truther definition now. Thanks.
NIST defines them as ordinary office fires.

They were in an office building and fuelled by office contents. Office building fires have burned a lot longer than wtc7 in the past and over more floors.

They were ordinary office fires. Unless, you disagree with NIST.
cooperman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2010, 12:59 PM   #105
Sam.I.Am
Illuminator
 
Sam.I.Am's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,627
Seeing as these are being described here by some as "Normal office fires" surely those making that claim can show many other images and videos where the fire and smoke as seen from the exterior are similar in extent and quantity.


But I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting for it...
__________________
"Swift, silent and deadly" was a part of my job description Upon hearing me say that my friend asked me "So you're a fart?"...

About my avatar.
Sam.I.Am is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2010, 01:00 PM   #106
cooperman
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 467
Originally Posted by Disbelief View Post
One of the largest office fires ever.
And? I am not disputing it was a large fire, but you agree it was an office fire. Nothing more.
cooperman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2010, 01:03 PM   #107
AJM8125
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 20,736
Originally Posted by cooperman View Post
NIST defines them as ordinary office fires.

They were in an office building and fuelled by office contents. Office building fires have burned a lot longer than wtc7 in the past and over more floors.

They were ordinary office fires. Unless, you disagree with NIST.
I must've missed the part where NIST called them ordinary office fires, because if they did, I'd have to disagree with them.
AJM8125 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2010, 01:07 PM   #108
Sam.I.Am
Illuminator
 
Sam.I.Am's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,627
Originally Posted by cooperman View Post
NIST say the damage played no role in the collapse. The OP of this thread claims the damage did play a role.

Do you agree with NIST?
NIST said that the structural damage wasn't the primary cause of the collapse. In other words if there were no fires subsequent to the collapse of the North Tower that struck WTC 7 then the building would've most likely remained standing. They never said that there was no damage to WTC 7, nor that that damage didn't lead to the fires which caused the eventual collapse of WTC 7. You can't try to make the report say what it doesn't say by cherry picking bits and pieces while ignoring the body of the report.
__________________
"Swift, silent and deadly" was a part of my job description Upon hearing me say that my friend asked me "So you're a fart?"...

About my avatar.
Sam.I.Am is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2010, 01:07 PM   #109
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,494
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
I'll give you a hint. You go wrong about here:
Originally Posted by Titanic Explorer View Post
'The towers fell, severely damaged building 7,
No... Titanic Explorer is correct. the North Tower did fall on and severely damage WTC7. The rest of his post is accurate as well.
Sword_Of_Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2010, 01:07 PM   #110
cooperman
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 467
Originally Posted by Sam.I.Am View Post
Seeing as these are being described here by some as "Normal office fires" surely those making that claim can show many other images and videos where the fire and smoke as seen from the exterior are similar in extent and quantity.


But I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting for it...
This fire looks pretty bad

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal...la_fire1_s.jpg

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal..._fire_lg_s.jpg

It was the First Interstate Bank fire.


And this one looks "fully involved"

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal...jing_torch.jpg
Mod WarningBreaches of rule 5 removed. Do not hotlink images from other sites without permission.
Posted By:Cuddles


The last one was teh Hotel Mandarin Oriental. A different kind of construction to wtc7 but a very serious fire, wouldn't you agree?

Last edited by Cuddles; 4th October 2010 at 02:38 AM.
cooperman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2010, 01:09 PM   #111
Bullwinkle2009
Student
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 35
Hi, There was damage to the outside of 7. On the corner. The build did not go straight down it fell to the south (In the direction it was leaning from the damage) All this is clear in video shot at the time. The NYFD knew the build was going down because they could hear it breaking. There was a bulge in the building. There was 42,000 gal of diesel fuel inside. None of this is new
Bullwinkle2009 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2010, 01:09 PM   #112
cooperman
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 467
Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth View Post
No... Titanic Explorer is correct. the North Tower did fall on and severely damage WTC7. The rest of his post is accurate as well.
Did the severe damage play any role in the collapse of wtc7? If it didn't then while the statement may be factual, it is lying when used in this context.
cooperman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2010, 01:11 PM   #113
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,494
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
I'll give you a hint. You go wrong about here:
And you went waaaayyyy wrong right about here:
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
No, wrong. He made out like a bandit when he received much more compensation than he invested and refuses to contribute his own money to the rebuilding, seeking instead public and private funds.
Sword_Of_Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2010, 01:13 PM   #114
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,494
Originally Posted by cooperman View Post
If it didn't then while the statement may be factual, it is lying when used in this context.
Yes, it's factual. No it is not lying.

You have had this explained to you numerous times before.
Sword_Of_Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2010, 01:13 PM   #115
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,705
Originally Posted by cooperman View Post
It was, but the same role could have been played by a screwed up copy of the new york times and a match.

The OP is very deceptive in claiming that damage caused by the towers collapse contributed to 7's collapse. It didn't. wtc7 was, according to NIST, destroyed by ordinary office fires. I know it is hard to adjust after years of claiming the collapse was caused by diesel fuel and a 10 storey gash, but that is the official story.

If you want to combat toofers saying "what about building 7?" then to mention damage from the wtc collapse is lying.
Not really. Broken windows help feed air to the fires. The damage also helped spread the fire to multiple floors. So yes the damage did in fact aid in the collapse.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2010, 01:15 PM   #116
cooperman
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 467
Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth View Post
Yes, it's factual. No it is not lying.

You have had this explained to you numerous times before.

Did the severe damage caused by the collapse of wtc1 contribute to the collapse of wtc7? You can cut the question out out of your qoutes but it isn't going away.
cooperman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2010, 01:16 PM   #117
cooperman
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 467
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Not really. Broken windows help feed air to the fires. The damage also helped spread the fire to multiple floors. So yes the damage did in fact aid in the collapse.
Not accoring to NIST.
cooperman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2010, 01:17 PM   #118
Disbelief
Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,612
Originally Posted by cooperman View Post
And? I am not disputing it was a large fire, but you agree it was an office fire. Nothing more.
So now that we agree it was an office fire, what are you trying to get at?
__________________
Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same?

Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman
Disbelief is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2010, 01:19 PM   #119
AJM8125
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 20,736
Originally Posted by cooperman View Post
Did the severe damage caused by the collapse of wtc1 contribute to the collapse of wtc7? You can cut the question out out of your qoutes but it isn't going away.
Yes. It started the fires.
AJM8125 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2010, 01:19 PM   #120
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,494
Originally Posted by Disbelief View Post
So now that we agree it was an office fire, what are you trying to get at?
He's stuck in 1400 BC. Just prior to the discovery that fire can melt steel... which started the Iron Age.
Sword_Of_Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:14 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.