>>11244221yeah i read your bull shit post, didnt feel like pointing out all the flaws and just went with the most basic.. did you try to find one? find out it is actually just that dumb after all? or are you just butthurt and lashing out now?
>more likely to produce that result than a nuke.you see, youre wrong... i actually give the idiots calling it a nuke more credit than you clowns. makes me wonder if you've even done much research, if any at all. explosions do not achieve what we witnessed... not on your fucking life. those buildings were almost half-made of steel.. they had absolutely NO business resulting in so much dust. listen to the building disappear, it sounds like rushing wind. i dont hear a single explosion.. actual demolitions are loud as fuck
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCPVNLLo-mI&feature=emb_title>>11244226>ignore all coutner evidence>post pictures of books that literally do nothing to prove/disprove your pathetic casepost more diagrams, m8, im sure thatll do the trick. never mind trying to diminish even ONE challenge put forth to your shitty theory.. nah man, just post more drawings! i mean, the event was hardly documented, right? cant possible find any ACTUAL proof of your claims, no no no.. must post drawings!
