ReturnOfTheMack

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_t...rformance_study

 

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology...de-center#steel

Done.

The best way I can answer that is by saying that experienced, credible professionals that number in their thousands; who are experts and specialists in such fields as engineering and architecture have conducted research and concluded that several aspects of the offical 9/11 story are spurious and that the manner in which the buildings collapsed can't have been caused by the factors reported in the offical 9/11 story. It should also be noted that even the official reports have been unable to explain some of the aspects of the building's collapses, describing such things as the corrosion of steel beams as very unusual events with no clear explanation for the source of the corrosion.

Examples please bud. So I can answer the specific points as the steel beams stuff that I have read in the past has never mentioned corrosion.

That's a ridiculous point. South Yorkshire isn't a country.

Except its not a ridiculous point as its still part of the UK. As is Scotland. Its no more unfair on South Yorkshire than it is Scotland that our overall government has the power over a unitary state. Being a country makes no difference, we still voted against the current government and we still have to put up with it. Thats democracy, if it doesnt go your way then suck it up and get over it, democracy means accepting it when its against you as well as when its what you want. Or campaign for independence obviously.

But joking aside, would you prefer full independence or one of the other options that people have been floating about? If so would you want Scotland in the commonwealth or not?

Because, despite the current set-up as far as the Scottish Government goes, we're basically being run by a coalition of political parties that secured 12 seats and 34% of the Scottish vote.

 

I don't like that, or think it's very fair, thus independence is the answer as far as I'm concerned.

Britain is being run by that government, and its not just Scotland that didnt vote them in, South Yorkshire also was mostly opposed. Following your logic do you think the answer is independence for them?

Or is this reason more a way to justify the way you already feel about Scottish independence?

Either way its no odds, I support self determination for all the home nations. I'll especially support it for Scotland if you agree to take the cast of Geordie Shore from England.

edit: why cant I ever type without seeming like Im being cuntish?

We can always hope. The sooner we split from England, the better.

Why? Honest question.

Im aware of that, it wasnt the point I was making fella.

I think that people on both sides of the 9/11 fence are guilty of that. Look at how many people openly admit that they accept the official story of events without considering any form of independent research.

Which is still less stupid than the 'holograms' or 'space ray' stuff.

Absolutely. But equally that doesn't mean that certain events - particularly ones of global importance - shouldn't be scrutinised beyond what the media or government tells us.

Of course, and I doubt anybody would really disagree. What we tend to disgaree with is the way that the majority of 'truthseekers', or whatever they call themselves, start with an assumption and find facts to back that up while discarding anything that disagrees with that. They accept 'facts' from others of their ilk without checking the validity of those facts.

last night a bloke was stood near a drink and I swore he was gonna nick it, but he didn't, but look at it the other way it was proper fucking suspish... see anything can be scrutinised. Of course this drink didn't lead to a war mind you.

Thats pretty much what I mean. Theres almost always something you could consider to be dodgy in world events, things rarely fit in to easy little boxes.

I can't say that I've spent much time looking at the JFK assassination but from the little I've seen (and I'm not just talking about the Oliver Stone movie) about it and the Bobby Kennedy murder both seem a wee bit suspicious.

Look into most events and you'll find something you could call suspicious, the way I see it is it doesnt mean that theres anything dodgy happening.

I accept the official 9/11 stories but I havent ever really looked into the JFK one, so I accept the offiical story there until I do.

Horrorshow, what do YOU believe happened on 9/11? And whats your reasoning?

I have yet to see any 9/11 evidence that it was a conspiracy that has stood up to counter points.

People didnt like Hudson Hawk? I loved that film to bits.

I think Loki Van Damme goes down a treat.

You been talking to Bill Watts?

So, what about the person with the username PCC lacky #1?

I'm 300+ pages into A Game Of Thrones and I've got the other three (technically four) books to read.

Im part way through book two and loving it.

No it is, it was unveiled in January as the new outfit. I dont know if its actually been used yet though, maybe they are timing it to enter around the same time as the film.

Just quickly googled it, that image is the cover of Superman #1: The Man of Tomorrow. Have they started that line yet?

http://comicbook.com/blog/2011/06/11/new-s...stume-revealed/

Looks like they are using the new suit.

At least in part, judging by the lack of red pants.

.

 

What's the deal with Blackberrys? Why do so many people swear by them?

My wife and my aunty both have them, and both hate them.

Ugh. The Twilight books are the worst written books I have ever read that werent entitled 'Mills and Boon' (yeah, I was sick in bed at my dads and its all they had to read).

Just started one the Song of Fire and Ice series.

When Rory first became a companion I was the only person I know who was happy about it. Doctor Who is generally better for me with multiple people in the TARDIS.

Finally got around to watching The Expendables. I loved it very, very much, especially the Operation Wolf style tribute.

Im not big on religion, but isnt the Sikh thing something about them being warriors as well as pious? Or some stuff like that? Its why they carry the knife. So its not really a shocker if they are defending their temples with swords.

No - the police do not have the power to convict somebody or set sentence

 

and that is a good thing given that the catalyst for all of this started off with the line (at the very least heavily implied) "we had to shoot him, he opened fire first - look at this bullet lodged in the police radio"

 

then quickly became "ok, that was actually a police bullet, but he fired first"

 

has now become "well, fine - he didn't fire but he had a gun and we determined he was about to use it"

 

not all Police officers are corrupt, but more than a handful are & given how quickly their story is falling apart, would anyone REALLY fall off their chair if way down the line it turns out that the gun was planted (or even that it was pure luck for them that he did have one -however illegal- but was not brandishing it in any way)?

Except for the police themselves, according to the IPCC anyway, never even claimed that they were shot at in the first place. That was all the media.