SMBC Comics Forum

[quote="Administrator/moderator/witless bullshiter pretending to be Jim Garrison"]After reading all the very convincing arguments that you have posted here, I have been forced to conclude that I was wrong about the attacks on the World Trade Center. I hereby accept the findings of the NIST commission as accurate and complete, and recant all my previous statements to the contrary. This will be my final word on the subject, and anything I say later about it should be disregarded.

Thank you for your time, and God Bless America.[/quote]

That one I didn't expect, so thank you for being less predictible. Will you also delete what I write now ?

Peon wrote:
> I read this topic but I didn't see where you "disproved" the simpler theory by observation
> and experiment.

First post, second link, 2 hours of evidence. I didn't prove or disprove anything but 1500 experts agreed on the conclusion that the official version doesn't resist a critical examination. The demonstration even allows you to understand the key problems and form your own opinion.

Jim Garrison wrote:

Myself, earlier in the thread, wrote:After reading all the very convincing arguments that you have posted here, I have been forced to conclude that I was wrong about the attacks on the World Trade Center. I hereby accept the findings of the NIST commission as accurate and complete, and recant all my previous statements to the contrary. This will be my final word on the subject, and anything I say later about it should be disregarded.

Thank you for your time, and God Bless America.

That one I didn't expect, so thank you for being less predictible. Will you also delete what I write now ?

Peon wrote:
> I read this topic but I didn't see where you "disproved" the simpler theory by observation
> and experiment.

First post, second link, 2 hours of evidence. I didn't prove or disprove anything but 1500 experts agreed on the conclusion that the official version doesn't resist a critical examination. The demonstration even allows you to understand the key problems and form your own opinion.

Hang on, first you say that you were wrong, and now you're back on the argument? What's going on here??

I'm starting to think Jim may have a split personality or something of that sort. Maybe we should go a little easy on him.

Hey guys, my mind is really blown by this whole 2=3 thing. Could you explain please ?

Jim Garrison wrote:Hey guys, my mind is really blown by this whole 2=3 thing. Could you explain please ?

I still don't understand why you keep saying there were only 3 WTC buildings. And I did. It was debris and fire from the nearby twin towers collapsing. They were all pretty close.

sup guys?

practicin some math

if we suppose that 2=3

then 2+2=2+3=3+2=3+3

therefore 4=5=6


corollary: 2+2=5

smiley_cow wrote:
> I still don't understand why you keep saying there were only 3 WTC buildings. And
> I did. It was debris and fire from the nearby twin towers collapsing. They were
> all pretty close.

So the cause of the collapse is definitely not the collision with a plane. Because FYI that's the issue here.

Jim Garrison wrote:smiley_cow wrote:
> I still don't understand why you keep saying there were only 3 WTC buildings. And
> I did. It was debris and fire from the nearby twin towers collapsing. They were
> all pretty close.

So the cause of the collapse is definitely not the collision with a plane. Because FYI that's the issue here.

you have a fascinating interpretation of sentences

DonRetrasado wrote:
> you have a fascinating interpretation of sentences

Your 2=3 logical axiom is fascinating to me, so I guess the obvious meaning of a simple sentence must also be to you.

are you coming onto me?

DonRetrasado wrote:

Jim Garrison wrote:smiley_cow wrote:
> I still don't understand why you keep saying there were only 3 WTC buildings. And
> I did. It was debris and fire from the nearby twin towers collapsing. They were
> all pretty close.

So the cause of the collapse is definitely not the collision with a plane. Because FYI that's the issue here.

you have a fascinating interpretation of sentences

Man, I am so confused right now.

I think he's saying that because at least one building in the WTC was not destroyed via high-speed insertion of an airliner, none of them were.