steve, why do you keep showing the weakest evidence there could possibly be for an argument? really, you are trying so hard, but failing so bad.
steves new conspiracy: thermite devices AND explosives just for good measure (inaudible on camera yet eye witnesses explain loud shit crashing as explosions so there must be bombs!)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GT40FIED
Sweet jesus man...try and contain it all in one post. I can't reply to three posts in one (or rather I won't simply because you lack the skill to make a cohesive statement). No...I said they were built to withstand an airliner hit. Withstand meaning to SURVIVE a hit from an airliner...not just to hang around for a while and then collapse.
|
i'm so sorry, it just seems like I keep finding more and more shit to post proving you have no clue what you're talking about. I suppose I'll just edit the post to help you out from now on.
it did survive the hit.
what was the bridge (or bridges) designed to survive the wind, but swayed and fell anyway?? do you get it? you can design something to do what you think it will, and then in reality it doesn't quite go as planned.
cohesive statement? because I don't rattle on and on with bullshit not really pertaining to the facts I lack some kind of skill. stfu.