Re: WTC Towers: The case for controlled demolition
- From: theamazing.com
- Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:33:19 -0500
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:10:18 -0500, Phil Cartwright
<pcartw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Government Shill #2 wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:35:12 -0500, Phil Cartwright <pcartw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Actually, yes it was.
But actually, yes you did.
Yes you did.
Yes I was.
No, actually, it is not.
Whine, blub, sob, whine... Repeat.
Hrm. Another content-free, pure-namecalling post by someone who doesn't
know how to respect Followup-To: headers. It seems there's a lot of
these hereabouts!
What more can you realistically expect from coincidence theorists?
.
- Prev by Date: Re: WTC Towers: The case for controlled demolition
- Next by Date: Re: global slowing
- Previous by thread: Re: WTC Towers: The case for controlled demolition
- Next by thread: Re: WTC Towers: The case for controlled demolition
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading