Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wtc

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Wtc

    This one has a good amount of engineering detail about what damage wtc7 sustained, and why it failed structurally...

    http://www.911mysteriesguide.com/18.php

    Do I believe that the Bush admin. has screwed up a lot of things? Yes...
    Do I believe that these same people would have been capable of constructing a conspiracy that involved hundreds, if not thousands of people, executing perhaps the greatest demolition in history in total secrecy with almost supernatural precision and results?

    I think icky said it best.
    Do or do not, there is no try....
    -- Yoda, Dagobah

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Wtc

      Originally posted by War.mongeR1 View Post
      Did anyone see the South Park episode regarding this topic? They were right. I can't bring myself to believe that the government could actually pull of a plot like this succesfully. They can't even balance a budget. I don't believe too many conspiracies, though. If there is a conspiracy here, it's that our government WANTS us to believe they could do something like that to make them seem more powerful and secretive (when it was really the terrorists all along).
      So it's inconceivable that the government and the powers behind the throne couldn't decide to allow terrorists to carry out successful terrorist actions, after concluding that those actions would further enable those in power to strengthen their grip on said power? You'll find no evidence but MI5 let the IRA carry out bombings on more than one occasion because murder carries a higher maximum sentance than conspiring to blow people up does. It amazes me that people can be so convinced that their government wouldn't do such evil thing, yet those same people wouldn't trust the average politician anywhere near their children.

      Absent 9/11 or a similarly horrific event it's less likely the "patriot" act gets passed, that entire nations get hoodwinked into supporting a bogus invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan or any of the terror legislation (you'd think they'd call it anti-terror) that "civilised" governments have managed to bring in.

      Post 9/11 the UK government has been able to get away with the removal of double jepordy, the removal of trial by jury and the removal of the right of a defendant to know the evidence against them (all of this is for limited offences *currently. Slippery slope ftw). Possession of the boy scouts handbook is a terrorist offence. Mandatory GPS trackers are going to be fitted to every car in the UK, enabling unprecented population control. Some of the legislation is pending but seeing as we're "at war" it stands a far better chance of getting passed.

      All this so that a bunch of worthless people can get a tighter grip on the power they have.
      BFCL TF2 league admin

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Wtc

        Originally posted by Switch
        I haven't provided any evidence at all yet, I'm just stating my opinion.
        See switch, therein lies the problem. The things you stated so firmly in the post that I debunked, you posted as FACT. You never said "these are my opinions, with no factual scientific basis". You purported them as the gospel truth. This is the problem with all conspiracy theorists. They spew information that is pure opinion while trying to state it as fact, then after all is said and done and their hot air has been shown to be just that, they call the "opinion" card to save face.

        So for the future of this argument, if anyone is going to make any kind of factual statement, please be prepared to back it up as such.

        And Root, I see where you're coming from. However, has MI5 ever allowed any travesty on the scale of the 9/11 attacks to occur? I cant recall such an event. Sure, it's tragic that they allow car bombs and other terrorist actions in order to nail a higher sentence, but to say that any government would kill thousands of civilians in a terrorist attack, then sacrifice thousands of military troops in the ensuing conflict is ABSOLUTELY inconceivable. As for the loss of liberties in the UK, I feel bad for you. Sure, some small liberties have been lost here, but as the american people have realized this, the actions taken to reduce those liberties are being overturned. Notice the patriot act didnt get its renewal? Too much controversy.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Wtc

          Originally posted by Ferris Bueller View Post
          And Root, I see where you're coming from. However, has MI5 ever allowed any travesty on the scale of the 9/11 attacks to occur? I cant recall such an event. Sure, it's tragic that they allow car bombs and other terrorist actions in order to nail a higher sentence, but to say that any government would kill thousands of civilians in a terrorist attack, then sacrifice thousands of military troops in the ensuing conflict is ABSOLUTELY inconceivable.
          It's not tragic. It's evil and treasonous.

          As for the larger scale, money = power. Oil = money. Unless we all start making a HUGE amount of noise and demand that only morally upstanding citizens stand for election, then the diagnosis for the "civilised" world is exactly as put forward by the great philosopher C3PO :

          we're doomed
          BFCL TF2 league admin

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Wtc

            Thats simple political entropy though. The evil and corrupt will always rise to power. It's a vicious cycle because power corrupts and those with power are willing to pass on some of that power to retain their thrones, corrupting the future generations of powerful men, who will in turn do the same thing in their prime.

            Without some globally unifying cause, the world is undoubtedly headded toward a state of unmitigated chaos. We're in for a big fall. It may not be anytime soon, it may not be for a hundred or so years, but if we continue down the path of greed and shadiness, it will undoubtedly happen. Seeing as greed is second to survival in human nature, this looks to be the ultimate case. Pray for space travel and colonization on other planets so we dont have to be here when it all falls down.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Wtc

              I never want to see the 9/11 commission report again, i had to read so much of that **** for class.

              Ferris, you went ballistic over the changing of medic class dynamics. I consider your opinion equally volatile regardless of the subject matter. I'm not yelling or screaming, I'm just saying that I've had the responsibility of pouring over all this crap for a class, and it doesnt add up. There are many sources of professional evidence that points out flaws and inconsistencies with the official determination.

              Originally posted by Ferris Bueller View Post
              The kinetic shock DID contribute to the fall, but was not the primary cause. The kinetic shock caused structural weakening throughout the structure of both buildings. Proven fact.
              If structural integrity was compromised at a specific point, the resulting collapse would demonstrate it by falling asymmetrically.


              Originally posted by Ferris Bueller View Post
              -The fires didnt have to weaken the structure to aid in the collapse. Fires weaken the other objects and debris which the structure supports at precise tolerances on multiple levels. When those tolerances are overloaded, you begin to see a catastrophic failure. Think of it like a house of cards. Start by placing a penny on each of the levels of the house. Then start a fire under the top level, causing the penny to fall to the next. Start a subsequent fire on the level below that to cause then both pennies to fall. At this point, the whole house collapses under the compounded weight of the objects within. It's simple physics.
              Not to be offensive, but this analogy sucks.
              Fire weakens other objects and debris? So what. You can destroy every sheetrock wall and walnut desk you want. That should have absolutely no effect on the supporting structure. Then you go into a pancake argument that does not occur until AFTER there is structural failure. Survey says: try again. Are you trying to suggest that it was so hot that the floor melted and fell onto the floor underneath, resulting in compound weight to cause failure in an eventual cascade pancake? Unfortunately for that theory there were non crispy people on those floors and firemen just a few floors away reporting isolated fires and surviving in close proximity where official reports claim super heat enough result in the failure you're suggesting.

              Originally posted by Ferris Bueller View Post
              -You're going to bring up sulphur? Are you kidding? I could burn down my apartment complex and there would be sulphur fumes. The amount of different chemicals, compunds and other detritus from the building collapses easily has the potential to produce sulphur. Did you know that burning concrete has been known to produce sulphur gas? True. But I dont suppose there was any concrete there.
              No burning will ever 'produce sulfur' Its an element, it will not be produced by burning random chemicals that do not already contain it. The amount of sulfur discovered at the site did not correlate to what should have been present. It was not 'trace sulfur'.

              Originally posted by Ferris Bueller View Post
              Also, thermite isnt an accelerant. Thermite is the product of combining accelerants in a proper mixture to create plasma fire. By the way, one way to create thermite is the combination of rust (which we all know isnt found anywhere near steel) and jet fuel (which jet liners certainly dont have).
              I am plenty familiar with thermite. Good luck igniting it with liquid fuel that burned off upon impact. I used magnesium when I played with it. I said accelerant to make a general statement. More precisely it was used to cut supporting beams in order to allow for your pancake to occur. More specifically, it is suspected to be THERMATE, a variant of thermite that uses sulfur to catalyze the reaction. It is the iron slag with tons of sulfur that provokes the most suspicion.

              Originally posted by Ferris Bueller View Post
              -For the last one, the debris from the towers didnt fall straight down. It fell down and out, like any collapse would produce. Please see my house of card reference again for how this effected surrounding buildings.
              The towers fell vertically by all accounts. What the hell are you talking about?
              When it began to pile at the bottom of course it went outwards.


              Originally posted by Ferris Bueller View Post
              So you see, with a very small amount of knowledge of chemistry and physics, I was able to debunk your "alarmist unnatural insignificant details", and i'm not even a professional in the field. But I have built houses of cards and seen the effects of weight unevenly distributed, as well as been around sulphur-producing fires, and have in fact, made thermite on more than one occasion in various chemistry classes and one very unfortunate schoolmate's engine block in high school.
              You've successfully proven that you have a very small amount of knowledge of chemistry and physics.

              Originally posted by Ferris Bueller View Post
              My suggestion before taking stock in ahy of this conspiracy crap, research the REAL side of things. Things that are proven FACT, like physics and chemistry, perhaps take stock in EXPERT testimony by people with advanced degrees in these fields, who probably tend to know more about it than some whack job sitting in his basement cooking up nut-theories.
              The experts that didn't lose their jobs from providing a view contrary to the official release? http://www.st911.org/ look up some of those basement nutjobs here. You dont have the swallow it whole, but it'll provide links to various writings by those basement dwellers with phd's

              And you're the one spewing forth 'facts' with no support. Saying i have support is not providing support. You debunked nothing whatsoever. You just think you did. This'll be the end of my posting on this topic for a little while. It's getting heated. All the hot air from your opinion may cause my computer to pancake.
              |TG|Switch

              Better known as:
              That noob who crashed the chopper.
              That noob who ran over the mine.
              That noob who TK'd me with a sniper rifle.
              That noob who hit that APC at 300m with light AT! Our APC...

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Wtc

                Originally posted by Switch View Post
                Ferris, you went ballistic over the changing of medic class dynamics. I consider your opinion equally volatile regardless of the subject matter. I'm not yelling or screaming, I'm just saying that I've had the responsibility of pouring over all this crap for a class, and it doesnt add up. There are many sources of professional evidence that points out flaws and inconsistencies with the official determination.
                Yes, I did go ballistic about it. So did a great number of other people. So you've had to pour over it for a class, and that makes you an expert any more than I? No sir.

                Originally posted by Switch
                If structural integrity was compromised at a specific point, the resulting collapse would demonstrate it by falling asymmetrically.
                True, if the compromise allowed it to fall asymetrically. If you have a compromise in a floor, the objects are not going to fall in any direction but down, thus adding to the structural weight of the floors below.


                Originally posted by Switch
                Not to be offensive, but this analogy sucks.
                Fire weakens other objects and debris? So what. You can destroy every sheetrock wall and walnut desk you want. That should have absolutely no effect on the supporting structure. Then you go into a pancake argument that does not occur until AFTER there is structural failure. Survey says: try again. Are you trying to suggest that it was so hot that the floor melted and fell onto the floor underneath, resulting in compound weight to cause failure in an eventual cascade pancake? Unfortunately for that theory there were non crispy people on those floors and firemen just a few floors away reporting isolated fires and surviving in close proximity where official reports claim super heat enough result in the failure you're suggesting.
                First, I never suggested that this occurred after complete structural failure. Theres a difference between my argument and what you're reading into it. Dont know how many times you've seen a building constructed, but the floor structures are not solid and reinforced. Often they are criscrosses of I-Beams with gaps filled by concrete. For normal tolerances, this is fine. However, lets examine the point of impact. All of the debris from impact, which includes the planes, all of the people and objects on the floors that were structurally compromised by the impact, did not just vaporize upon impact. These things fell downward onto the subfloors. The initial impact undoubtedly did have an effect on the integrity of the structure, and the ensuing fires and brekages further compromised this integrity. As the structural stability continues to weaken (which fire does cause, ask any firefighter alive), the increased weight becomes too much to bear and the structure collapses to the next level. At this point, it does become a cascade structural failure. Also, isolated fires on lower floors are fine and dandy. How many people survived from within 2 floors of the point of impact? 0? Hmm, so I guess maybe heat, explosions and falling debris might have played a role in their deaths.

                For further clarification, please read some of the eyewitness testimony by firefighters and civilians in that 9/11 commission report that you hate so much that describes floors collapsing on the upper stories.

                Originally posted by Switch
                No burning will ever 'produce sulfur' Its an element, it will not be produced by burning random chemicals that do not already contain it. The amount of sulfur discovered at the site did not correlate to what should have been present. It was not 'trace sulfur'.
                Yup, sulphur is an element. However, sulphur is activated by heat, and otherwise usually remains dormant. Many chemicals contain sulphur which will be released under heat or pressure. Concrete is one of the things that has this very reaction. So wheres your conclusion?

                Originally posted by Switch
                I am plenty familiar with thermite. Good luck igniting it with liquid fuel that burned off upon impact. I used magnesium when I played with it. I said accelerant to make a general statement. More precisely it was used to cut supporting beams in order to allow for your pancake to occur. More specifically, it is suspected to be THERMATE, a variant of thermite that uses sulfur to catalyze the reaction. It is the iron slag with tons of sulfur that provokes the most suspicion.
                You really want me to believe that 4000+ lbs of jet fuel ignited instantly and burned off on impact? You must be joking. Have you ever seen jet fuel explode? I have. A small amount of jet fuel can cause an exploison much larger than the same equivalent of gasoline, so when you take 4000+ pounds of it and ignite it all at once, as you would have us believe, you'd have an explosion 20x what we saw from the impact. The jet fuel did not burn off instantly and claiming that it did shows your ignorance to the obvious.

                As far as the thermate being used to cut the beams, wheres your proof? Please allow me to remind you that iron beams often contain more than just iron, and seeing as iron ore is usually found around sulphur deposits, wouldnt it be reasonable to postulate that the iron beams retain sulphur when they are made? I think so. In addition, the iron beams of the building that you say would have had to be cut were not exposed structures and not accessible. So how did "they" get the reaction to take place somewhere they could not get to except in the case that the plane exposed said beams and the jet fuel reacted with rust, as I suggested?

                Originally posted by Switch
                The towers fell vertically by all accounts. What the hell are you talking about?
                When it began to pile at the bottom of course it went outwards.
                Please, watch ANY video of the collapse and tell me that from the initial moments of collapse you dont see large amounts of debris pouring down at an outward arc.

                Originally posted by Switch
                You've successfully proven that you have a very small amount of knowledge of chemistry and physics.
                Again, your opinion, which has no scientific basis. Also, note that none of the points on which you have battled me have shown any scientific fact except for stating that sulphur is an element. Good job with that one.

                Originally posted by switch
                And you're the one spewing forth 'facts' with no support. Saying i have support is not providing support.
                http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
                http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...e/1227842.html

                Both credible sources. So where are yours, other than what came from your class? You have yet to produce ANYTHING. To borrow your own words, "saying I have support is not providing support".

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Wtc

                  So is the lack of evidence the evidence? That's about all you conspirators have to go on.
                  "Common sense is not so common." -Voltaire

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Wtc

                    Ok Switch, since you refuse to put the words in your own mouth, so to speak, you leave us with no choice but to put them there for you. Simply leaving the last steps in your (il)logical sequences unspoken does not absolve you of all responsibility for association with them.

                    You obviously believe that the WTC buildings and the Pentagon were intentionally sabotaged by hand, before the 9/11 attack, and that our government was complicit in conducting the attack and then covering it up afterwards. If there is anything in that statement you disagree with, say you don't believe that. Don't just hide behind cliches like "don't put words in my mouth" and then leave the conclusion unspoken. If you're going to accuse our government officials of mass murder of their own citizens, own up to it!

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Wtc

                      There is quite a bit of interesting work being done on the cultural climate of conspiratorial thinking in the US. Has relevance here. Why do so many see conspiracies behind events...

                      A good read on this is Michael Barkun, A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America. "Barkun finds that America is in the throes of an unrivaled period of millennarian activity."
                      sigpic

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Wtc

                        I agree Emale, and I believe that one of the reasons behind it is very simple: secrecy.

                        Whether the secrecy is intentional for reasons such as national security, or inadvertent due to ongoing research, the lack of public evidence to support any "shrouded" happening only leaves people with the option of forming their own conclusions based on any ideas, opinions or minor facts that they find available.

                        Due to the nature of secrecy, people tend to lean toward the darker side of things, blaming governments and corporations, fixtures which are commonly viewed as corrupt and self-servient, for the actions to which they postulate on. Out of this blame and disdain for such organizations and people, conspiracies arise that portray dark betrayals, often backed by ridiculous and unrealistic circumstances. Although unfortunate in nature due to the spread of distrust and malice, it does highlight the creativity of the human mind when no alternative fact is available.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Wtc

                          Originally posted by War.mongeR1 View Post
                          So is the lack of evidence the evidence? That's about all you conspirators have to go on.
                          And therein lies the problem if you're trying to convince someone that such a theory is correct, whether it's JFK or UFOs. Documents can be classified, people can be reassigned / threatened, computers can be erased. Throw plenty of nutjobs into the mix and we all get labelled as loons - even those theorists who try to take an objective approach. :(
                          BFCL TF2 league admin

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Wtc

                            Yes, I did go ballistic about it. So did a great number of other people. So you've had to pour over it for a class, and that makes you an expert any more than I? No sir.
                            When the class is called 'Understanding 9/11' I have to say yes. I'm an 'expert' more than you.

                            True, if the compromise allowed it to fall asymetrically. If you have a compromise in a floor, the objects are not going to fall in any direction but down, thus adding to the structural weight of the floors below.
                            You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. For a huge structure to fall STRAIGHT DOWN as it did, it needs to have precise cuts to allow a vertical fall. The impact of the planes did not create a uniform break on an entire floor. Therefor, when falling the tower should lean to one side where the failure originated. This is why buildings FALL OVER, not down.

                            First, I never suggested that this occurred after complete structural failure. Theres a difference between my argument and what you're reading into it. Dont know how many times you've seen a building constructed, but the floor structures are not solid and reinforced. Often they are criscrosses of I-Beams with gaps filled by concrete. For normal tolerances, this is fine. However, lets examine the point of impact. All of the debris from impact, which includes the planes, all of the people and objects on the floors that were structurally compromised by the impact, did not just vaporize upon impact. These things fell downward onto the subfloors. The initial impact undoubtedly did have an effect on the integrity of the structure, and the ensuing fires and brekages further compromised this integrity. As the structural stability continues to weaken (which fire does cause, ask any firefighter alive), the increased weight becomes too much to bear and the structure collapses to the next level. At this point, it does become a cascade structural failure. Also, isolated fires on lower floors are fine and dandy. How many people survived from within 2 floors of the point of impact? 0? Hmm, so I guess maybe heat, explosions and falling debris might have played a role in their deaths.

                            For further clarification, please read some of the eyewitness testimony by firefighters and civilians in that 9/11 commission report that you hate so much that describes floors collapsing on the upper stories.
                            Where to begin! I gotta start with this line!!! "It did not vaporize on impact!"
                            According to uncle sam two planes did just that! the pentagon and farm field planes VAPORIZED according to their claims! Never in the history of plane crashes has that happened --- but it did twice on that day --- might as well, 3 buildings fell due to a historical first time fires melting a steel frame building.

                            There is video of a woman standing in the impact crater on one of the towers. Sure everyone who was there when it hit died. Soon after it was cool enough for someone to stand there. Im not saying the integrity wasnt compromised -- i'm saying it wasn't significant enough to cause the collapse. we can all agree that a hole is not good for the building. I'm saying the design of the towers accommodated for it and fire sufficiently.

                            Eye witness testimony --- i've read and listened to alot of it. There's tons of talk about secondary explosions from firemen. I also went to nyc for the class. I spoke to firemen there. They aren't very keen on the official report.

                            Yup, sulphur is an element. However, sulphur is activated by heat, and otherwise usually remains dormant. Many chemicals contain sulphur which will be released under heat or pressure. Concrete is one of the things that has this very reaction. So wheres your conclusion?
                            Sulfer isn't the odor eater in your shoe -- it isn't 'activated'. What you're trying to say is that sulfur was released from concrete during the heating process. Some undoubtedly was. What I'm saying is that they accounted for this 'organic' (meaning sulfur levels the expected to find at the site) sulfur and found levels that were far higher than the burning materials would allow for.
                            This begs the question -- where did all the sulfur come from. The potential answer is thermate.

                            You really want me to believe that 4000+ lbs of jet fuel ignited instantly and burned off on impact? You must be joking. Have you ever seen jet fuel explode? I have. A small amount of jet fuel can cause an exploison much larger than the same equivalent of gasoline, so when you take 4000+ pounds of it and ignite it all at once, as you would have us believe, you'd have an explosion 20x what we saw from the impact. The jet fuel did not burn off instantly and claiming that it did shows your ignorance to the obvious.

                            As far as the thermate being used to cut the beams, wheres your proof? Please allow me to remind you that iron beams often contain more than just iron, and seeing as iron ore is usually found around sulphur deposits, wouldnt it be reasonable to postulate that the iron beams retain sulphur when they are made? I think so. In addition, the iron beams of the building that you say would have had to be cut were not exposed structures and not accessible. So how did "they" get the reaction to take place somewhere they could not get to except in the case that the plane exposed said beams and the jet fuel reacted with rust, as I suggested?
                            A majority of the jet fuel burned on impact. Its the fireball you see when the planes hit. The remaining fuel is negligible as it would burn off quickly and add less total heat than the office furniture that burns inside.

                            There are no 'iron beams' They are steel. STEEL. Not iron. Thermate was used to cut steel. The implication is that charges were set in advance by demo crews. They were likely disguised as maintenance or the like. The building was supposedly rewired with cables the weeks prior to to 9/11. While this was happening the building had power shut down, security disabled for time periods, and for some reason bomb sniffing dogs were taken off watch.

                            As for jet fuel igniting thermite naturally. One, jet fuel doesnt burn hot enough to ignite thermite. Two, there would be no natural thermite on the steel. No significant rust, especially on beams covered in asbestoses coatings. Good luck getting fire onto them.


                            Please, watch ANY video of the collapse and tell me that from the initial moments of collapse you dont see large amounts of debris pouring down at an outward arc.
                            I am seriously questioning your intelligence. Plumes of debris flying out the windows as the structure pancakes STRAIGHT DOWN have no bearing on the fact that it fell STRAIGHT DOWN. 3 buildings. STRAIGHT DOWN. I don't know how you could even argue this point. Could anyone, no matter what you believe please just confirm that the buildings collapsed vertically. None of them fell over.

                            Again, your opinion, which has no scientific basis. Also, note that none of the points on which you have battled me have shown any scientific fact except for stating that sulphur is an element. Good job with that one.
                            I am making points and providing lines of reasoning that make sense. You, however, are the envy of every 5th grader that has ever argued a point.

                            Again, your opinion, which has no scientific basis. Also, note that none of the points on which you have battled me have shown any scientific fact except for stating that sulphur is an element. Good job with that one.
                            I provided a link in the last post to those crazy basement phd's. Prior to that, i provided a link to a 2 hour lecture of someone doing a point by point. Please watch the lecture. He doesn't even use big words. (well, not many)
                            http://www.st911.org/
                            http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...34652002408586
                            You were the one who had trouble understanding sulfur -- you should lay off trying to insult me on that.
                            |TG|Switch

                            Better known as:
                            That noob who crashed the chopper.
                            That noob who ran over the mine.
                            That noob who TK'd me with a sniper rifle.
                            That noob who hit that APC at 300m with light AT! Our APC...

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Wtc

                              Well this subject hits very hard to home, so I will tred lightly and try not to reveal any information. There will be conspiracy theories on every event in any nation. People love to think up reasons for why other people act, which makes a very good story. People have made careers out of "hard copy-esque" material. With that said, the conspiracy theory is "hogwash". Watch the videos!!! John is correct, there is a video of a plane hitting the Pentagon. Show me one instance of evidence that disproves the original theory and then we can have a discussion.

                              As I stated before, people will come up with a conspiracy theory for everything....everything. People mistrust the government and this will never change, ever!

                              As to the Patriot Act, take it for what it is. It is about time the government got tough and started using its investigative arm and tools at its disposal. I would give up much more freedoms to ensure my fa,ilies safety, that and I have nothing to hide. (Outside of being a horrible BF2 shot.) The next time you travel through the airport, instead of giving those Americans a hard time, thank them for their service to their country. If you think it is difficult traveling through an American airport, I direct you to Israel and say good luck!

                              For all of this conspiracy talk and the supporters of the conspiracy... I guarantee that YOU will be the first one to blame the government for not doing enough when the next attack occurs!!!!!!
                              "Don't tell people how to do things, tell them what to do and let them surprise you with their results." Gen. George Patton

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Wtc

                                Well, I could get mad and post another long rant negating everything switch said with solid evidence cited by at least 12 sources which I managed to research just today, but since he is incapable of conducting a debate without resorting to personal insults (which at count he has done twice), I'm withdrawing. Congratulations switch, you sure know how to win a fight.

                                Comment

                                Connect

                                Collapse

                                TeamSpeak 3 Server

                                Collapse

                                Twitter Feed

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X