>>13319990>Yeah how about knowwhich part is the "disinfo", exactly? do you have an actual critique? did bombs do this? was it turdmite? what?
>>13319992>if it wasn't a -conventional- demolition by the use of explosives it was "nothingnot is what is being said, anon. merely saying explosives (clearly) had nothing to do with it. they were demolished, no doubt.. just not with explosives