Just for amusement purposes as you have crazy views and opinions on most things, what is your opinion on 9-11? Real or inside job? 
Where’s that little popcorn fella?
The Sarge:
I prefer the sofa. 
Brilliant
Can’t find the popcorn guy - odd, I’m sure he was there a couple of months ago 
Would you be happy with just open minded,too close to call but it’s probably true.
But would really like to see an independent test done showing how the zb a plane built out of relatively light thin materials goes straight through zb great big thick steel beams that form the load bearing structure of a sky scraper with all the associated forces they are designed to withstand,without most,or at least some of the aircraft being torn to shreds on the outside of the building long before much more than just the front section of the fuselage,let alone the wings,engines,and tail could have got anywhere near the interior of the building 
.
Carryfast:
Would you be happy with just open minded,too close to call but it’s probably true.But would really like to see an independent test done showing how the zb a plane built out of relatively light thin materials goes straight through zb great big thick steel beams that form the load bearing structure of a sky scraper with all the associated forces they are designed to withstand,without most,or at least some of the aircraft being torn to shreds on the outside of the building long before much more than just the front section of the fuselage,let alone the wings,engines,and tail could have got anywhere near the interior of the building
What’s “probably true”?
And no, I want you to answer with either one answer or the other, no “open minded” crap. In fact I don’t think I’ve ever seen you do “open minded”, it’s always “this is how it is and I’ll argue my point rightly or wrongly with anyone who dares to disagree until the day they die” with you. 
I’ve never been convinced with the pentagon attack but the twin towers is beyond any doubt
Rob K:
Carryfast:
Would you be happy with just open minded,too close to call but it’s probably true.But would really like to see an independent test done showing how the zb a plane built out of relatively light thin materials goes straight through zb great big thick steel beams that form the load bearing structure of a sky scraper with all the associated forces they are designed to withstand,without most,or at least some of the aircraft being torn to shreds on the outside of the building long before much more than just the front section of the fuselage,let alone the wings,engines,and tail could have got anywhere near the interior of the building
What’s “probably true”?
And no, I want you to answer with either one answer or the other, no “open minded” crap. In fact I don’t think I’ve ever seen you do “open minded”, it’s always “this is how it is and I’ll argue my point rightly or wrongly with anyone who dares to disagree until the day they die” with you.
If I did’nt mean exactly that I would’nt have said that it would be interesting to see the results of a ‘test’ done in which we fly a remote control ballasted aircraft of the same type as those involved in the 9-11 attacks into a row of securely founded bedded framework of vertical and horizontal RSJ’s of the same thickness and under the type of compression and tensile loads as those in the world trade centre towers and see wether said plane can cut through them like a knife through butter without getting torn to shreds first before it’s all got through 
.Which part of open minded don’t you understand. 
Carryfast:
Rob K:
Carryfast:
Would you be happy with just open minded,too close to call but it’s probably true.But would really like to see an independent test done showing how the zb a plane built out of relatively light thin materials goes straight through zb great big thick steel beams that form the load bearing structure of a sky scraper with all the associated forces they are designed to withstand,without most,or at least some of the aircraft being torn to shreds on the outside of the building long before much more than just the front section of the fuselage,let alone the wings,engines,and tail could have got anywhere near the interior of the building
What’s “probably true”?
And no, I want you to answer with either one answer or the other, no “open minded” crap. In fact I don’t think I’ve ever seen you do “open minded”, it’s always “this is how it is and I’ll argue my point rightly or wrongly with anyone who dares to disagree until the day they die” with you.
If I did’nt mean exactly that I would’nt have said that it would be interesting to see the results of a ‘test’ done in which we fly a remote control ballasted aircraft of the same type as those involved in the 9-11 attacks into a row of securely founded bedded framework of vertical and horizontal RSJ’s of the same thickness and under the type of compression and tensile loads as those in the world trade centre towers and see wether said plane can cut through them like a knife through butter without getting torn to shreds first before it’s all got through
So long story short, you believe it was a genuine terrorist attack until you see a reconstruction proving otherwise. OK thanks. Had you down as being a likely doubter actually but there you go.
/thread.