| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |

This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
I Tell You What! Registered: 06/24/05 Posts: 5,998 Last seen: 8 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
Quote: yar, this video + operation northwoods should pretty much convince anyone to be dubious of 9/11. they drafted plans to kill americans to wage a war on false pretenses. its admitted in fact. why should 9/11, given the dodgy evidence, censorship, onesidedness....... etc.....be different? umm anyway the funny thing is i don't think anyone cares about 9/11 anymore except for people related to the victims. it's so absurd really..... vietnam war, cold war, terrorism war.... drug war..... when have the people ever seen peace? the funny thing is the people are never actually truely threatened by any of these things. sars. bird flu. the more afraid you are, the more on edge you are.... that's when they irk things like the patriot act through really really quickly... that's when they say "oooh let's just take this freedom out and modify this law so that we can do illegal shady things but get away with it" and meanwhile you aren't paying attention because you might die if a bird shits on your head. -------------------- ....I embrace my desire to feel the rhythm, to feel connected enough to step aside and weep like a widow, to feel inspired, to fathom the power, to witness the beauty, to bathe in the fountain, to swing on the spiral of our divinity and still be a human...... Edited by leery11 (04/06/06 12:06 PM)
| |||||||
|
I watch Fox News ![]() Registered: 03/23/06 Posts: 2,946 |
| ||||||
Quote: http://www.newamericancentury.org/ You're afraid of an educational organization? -------------------- http://www.theamericanright.com/ http://www.cnbc.com/id/15838446 http://www.climatedepot.com
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
I responded to your lies, not the link. I didn't even look at the link because it is either incorrect (maybe, maybe not) or you can't read.
You yourself said, "If you follow the link, you will see that it is claimed that Silverstein only invested $14 million of his own money. When the buildings were destroyed, he received approx. $5 billion in insurance money. Supposedly, he took out the insurance policy not too soon before 9/11. Just search google for "Larry Silverstein" and "insurance policy". A $4 billion plus profit is not too bad, don't you think? All it took was.., well, I think we know that part." Silverstein has not received $5B. The insurance co.s have to pay that to rebuild the site. He has not "received" the money, he cannot pocket the money, and he is obligated to rebuild. You know what else? He's still obligated to fulfill the lease agreement because he was responsible for insuring the buildings, which he did, as soon as he signed the LEASE. See that word. LEASE. You do know what that means, don't you? Let's help you a little more with your own statements. ""The lease agreement applied to World Trade Center Buildings One, Two, Four and Five World Trade Center, and about 425,000 square feet of retail space. Silverstein put up only $14 million of his own money [2] and the $3.2 billion deal closed on July 24th. Larry Silverstein already owned 7 World Trade Center which was also destroyed in the attack." The last sentence in this quote from THE LINK implies that Silverstein owned all the world trade center buildings. He already owned building seven, implying that he now owns the other buildings." How can it possibly imply that he now owns the other buildings when the first fucking word you quoted was, tada, LEASE. LEASE. This is the comprehension issue I speak of. Then you quote this: ""Following the attacks, Silverstein was awarded an insurance payment of more than three and a half billion dollars to settle his seven-week-old insurance policy[3]. In addition, the Silverstein group sued the insurers liable for the World Trade Center for another three and a half billion dollars, claiming that by an obscure clause in their contract, the two planes constituted two separate terrorist attacks[4]. In total, Silverstein was awarded nearly $5 billion in insurance money following the destruction of the Twin Towers[5]." The ridiculous opinion expressed that there was an "obscure clause" which may have entitled him to another 3.5B is absurd. There was nothing "obscure" about it. Nor was it the least bit clear that the insurance companies would prevail. Two planes, two attacks. It was a strong case. But not strong enough. Too bad. 5B probably isn't enough. Which is probably why Bloomberg is trying to wrest control from Silverstein by saying he doesn't have enough money to rebuild. If Bloomberg succeeds, which I don't think likely, the insurance money will go to the city (more correctly the Port Authority of NY/NJ, the OWNERS of the buildings) for reconstruction, not Silverstein. Further, it is utterly irrelevant to emphasize that the insurance policy was 7 weeks old when that was the age of, tada, THE LEASE. What, he was supposed to insure the buildings before he leased them? This is part and parcel of the moronity of which I speak. And finally, we come to this ""Among the items being negotiated are agreements over who will build what at the site, how much rent Silverstein will pay, and how to divide what's left of nearly $5 billion in insurance money Silverstein was awarded after the Twin Towers collapsed."" And "He definitely does not have enough money to rebuild." He didn't get enough to rebuild, you (and Bloomberg) contend, he has to rebuild (if he doesn't he will never see one nickel of the insurance money, see "and how to divide what's left of nearly $5 billion"), but somehow he has realized a several billion dollar profit? Lets do some rudimentary math shall we. 99yr lease worth 3.2B (For the foolish, that means Silverstein agreed to pay over the life of the lease 3.2B). Thats an average of 32M per year or approx. 2.7M per month. If you ask me that's an incredibly good deal that he signed. Even if he was paying the average in the first year of a 99 year lease that's still a great deal. The link says he only laid out 14M. Yeah, so what, that's 5 months rent. He only had use of it for 2. This whole argument smacks of anti-semitic whack jobs fabricating connections and inventing implications that don't exist. "The Jew made money, he must have done it." A. He didn't make money. B. Anti-semitic and anti-everything assholes did do it.
| |||||||
|
PhysicallyDeterm Registered: 07/26/04 Posts: 426 Last seen: 11 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
Quote: That is your problem, for I have not lied. I have not said anything that I claimed to be true, emphasis on "I". This is what other people are saying. Now if it is so evidently false, and you know this, then you should easily be able to link your sources or at least cite them. So far you have failed to do so. All you produce are unsupported statements and ad hominems. This is a sign of poor form. Quote: Yes, I said that, but I did not make the claim myself, I simply passed along information from a cited source. Note the use of 'supposedly', signifying that it is not absolutely true, but supposed by some (i.e. those who I cited). Quote: Source? Yes I see the word 'lease', and I never denied that it was there. However, when it is says, "[...] he already owned [...]," it seems to be implying that he now owns the others. I will admit that this is a weak implication. Quote: Yes, and I also mentioned that there are people out there (i.e. Alex Jones) claiming that Silverstein bought and owned the other buildings. So there really is no comprehension issue, when I am passing along information being said by others. Quote: This may be true, however it would be helpful for you to cite your source, as I have did. You see, when sources are cited and directly quoted, information is simply being passed along. There is never a need to shoot the messenger, a point which you seem to be unable to grasp whilst you sit upon your high-horse. Quote: This is a good point, but again the fault is not mine, as you like to imply. Quote: You make some good points, unfortunately in combating the loaded language used in the, let us call it, "The Greedy Jew Conspiracy Argument," you use just as much loaded language, which does not accomplish anything. If anything, what you have to say, and have said, will turn others off, and your information (which may be useful and/or important) will go unnoticed. Wouldn't this be unfortunate? Quote: You must be Jewish (excuse me if I am being too assumptive). The unfortunate thing about internet discussion is that sarcasm does not go over too easily unless it is so blatant that it defeats the initial purpose of using that sarcasm.
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
I'm not Jewish. I'm an atheist of non-religious protestant descent. My wife, step-children and many friends are Jewish, some of whom are atheists. I take issue with a lot of Jewish policy but will not let pass unremarked upon what I consider to be some of the more subtle anti-semitic nonsense. The obviously anti-semitic I usually just let speak for itself.
I also live just outside NYC and have been paying a good deal of attention to this stuff. Silversetin has lost a great deal of money from this. Some of it out of his pocket and some of it from lost future revenue. Bloomberg knows this. He also knows that Silverstein signed one hell of an advantageous lease in the first place and that he would be in an incredibly good financial position if the buildings had not fallen. Any implication that Silverstein benefited from the destruction of the WTC is so ludicrous as to be laughable. Alex Jones is a complete cunt and if that's where you want to get your "reality" from, then good luck to you, because he is playing you for a sucker.
| |||||||
|
Informer Registered: 04/01/06 Posts: 208 Loc: Chicago Last seen: 14 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
Quote: I hope you are joking. This is an organization created in favor of United States globalization. They stated in their statement of principles that "we need a catastrophy- like another PEARL HARBOR" to rally the country for their cause.( this was actualy recently removed from the site). Does it frighten you that the majority if not all of the men who started this organization in 1997 for the purpose of globalization now are at the top of our government and other major organization. Jeb bush, Dick cheney, steve forbes, Gary Bauer, William Bennett, Lewis Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Aaron Friedberg. Those are just the everyday names that people know. There are many more on that list who are also involved at the top. "Saddam Hussein must go. This imperative may seem too simple for some experts and too daunting for the Clinton Administration. But if the United States is committed, as the President said in his State of the Union Message, to insuring that the Iraqi leader never again uses weapons of mass destruction, the only way to achieve that goal is to remove Mr. Hussein and his regime from power. Any policy short of that will fail. The good news is this: The Administration has abandoned efforts to win over the Iraqi leader with various carrots. It is clear that Mr. Hussein wants his weapons of mass destruction more than he wants oil revenue or relief for hungry Iraqi children. Now the Administration is reportedly planning military action -- a three- or four-day bombing campaign against Iraqi weapons sites and other strategic targets. But the bad news is that this too will fail. In fact, when the dust settles, we may be in worse shape than we are today. Think about what the world will look like the day after the bombing ends. Mr. Hussein will still be in power -- if five weeks of heavy bombing in 1991 failed to knock him out, five days of bombing won't either. Can the air attacks insure that he will never be able to use weapons of mass destruction again? The answer, unfortunately, is no. Even our smart bombs cannot reliably hit and destroy every weapons and storage site in Iraq, for the simple reason that we do not know where all the sites are. After the bombing stops, Mr. Hussein will still be able to manufacture weapons of mass destruction. Pentagon officials admit this. " -William Kristol, chairman of the organization. January 30, 1998 -------------------- "People living deeply have no fear of death." "Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love." "Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."
| |||||||
|
PhysicallyDeterm Registered: 07/26/04 Posts: 426 Last seen: 11 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Oh no, don't get me wrong, I take everything people like Alex Jones say with a grain of salt, as they say, but this does not I mean I should ignore everything he says and it does not call for ad hominem attacks. Regardless, this does not detract from the fact that there are many people "out there" taking his word for the truth. Now, if the truth was given to the people in the first place, then there would not be so much contradiction and such rampant conspiracy theory. Unfortunately there seem to be many holes and many people feel as if they have been lied to. Whilst conspiracy theorists all seem to have their own motives, there are similar patterns emerging or being realized from all of their theories, and each theory, although not 100% true or accurate, does have some value and something to offer. The problem, as always in the search for truth, are the ulterior motives that use the guise of truth to spread their cause.
| |||||||
|
Informer Registered: 04/01/06 Posts: 208 Loc: Chicago Last seen: 14 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
nicely said
-------------------- "People living deeply have no fear of death." "Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love." "Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 03/03/06 Posts: 99 |
| ||||||
|
Five Misconceptions about Islam that could kill Democracy
Full explications of each of these points can be found in Islam Unveiled. From Jewish World Review: I was shocked after September 11th when I heard government officials say Islam is a "religion of peace". Nothing could be farther from the truth! Our President was even considering not conducting any military activities out of respect for Ramadan! I spoke with my congressman, Nick Lampson of Texas, and strenuously objected, sharing my experience and what I had learned about Islam. I explained how Islam is the greatest threat the Democracies of our world face in the 21st Century, and demonstrated how the international polity of Islam is the equivalent of the German Nazis in the 20th century. I further pointed out that Osama Ben laden is the equal to Adolph Hitler in our generation. As result, Congressman Lampson asked me to submit to him a factual report that he could present to the Foreign Relations Committee, Congress, and the President. Some of this article is based on that report. It must be understood that we define Moslem, as one who follows the Quran, the life of Mohammed, and the traditions of the community. There are sects called Moslems that do not necessarily abide by these rules. They can be called "cultural Moslems," some of these are Ismailis, Druze, and Sufis. Secular Moslems like many Turks have a Moslem culture but because of Turkey's history and geography have been secularized. Fundamentalists, those that accept the Quran literally, and pattern their lives after Mohammed, as well as follow the traditions of those who have historically lived this way, are a growing threat to all mankind and all democracies of the world. Now here are some very critical misconceptions regarding Islam: 1. Islam is a religion of peace, and is not anti-Jewish. Islam has been a violent and military movement from its beginning. The current attitude of Arab and Islamic countries towards Jews dates back to the life of Mohammed, who conducted 74 military campaigns, 24 of them personally. He unified the Arab tribes with war and assassinated or exiled Jews, therefore setting precedent for the militant and anti-Jewish practices of Islam. The reason Mohammed was so violently anti-Jewish was because he originally saw himself as a prophet to the Jews, Christians, and pagans of Arabia. In his early reign he instructed his followers to bow down and pray to Jerusalem! The Jews of Arabia rejected him as a Hebrew prophet and he was almost killed in battle with them. He then changed the direction of prayer to Mecca. I journeyed across Syria from Damascus to Aleppo to the Euphrates River and back to Damascus in 1999. I learned that it was a practice in Syria for Moslem fathers to make their son's swear, "I will kill a Jew before I die." In 1947 Arab mobs in Aleppo devastated the 2,500-year-old Jewish community. Many Jews were killed and thousands of Jews illegally fled Syria to go to Israel. Today there are less than 150 Jews in the entire nation. 2. Islam is just a religion. Islam has never been just a religion in the traditional sense, in as much as the members of Democracies understand; it has always been a polity; a political organization. Mohammed's intention was the unification of the Arab tribes and their international expansion. The state and religion are not seen as separate nor can an individual dissent from the Quran. The very word Islam means submission. Islam is seen as a political organization, which has no boundaries. This was the intent of Mohammed in the establishment of the Umma, the community or brotherhood. Western culture perceives this to be their statement of equality for mankind, but it must be remembered; if you are not Moslem you are not equal. In Islamic societies where Jews and Christians are allowed to exist they do not have the same rights as a Moslem, and they are required to pay a special tax. Read it all. http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005133.php
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 03/03/06 Posts: 99 |
| ||||||
| |||||||
|
illegal alien Registered: 04/16/04 Posts: 2,146 Last seen: 5 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
|
Besides the very obvious reasons why the government would blow up the WTC mentioned by beatnicknick and the insurance money mentioned by Darcho, there's also another potential reason: gold, lots of gold.
Quote: The only published articles about recovered gold mention only around $200 million worth of gold.
-------------------- ![]()
| |||||||
|
I watch Fox News ![]() Registered: 03/23/06 Posts: 2,946 |
| ||||||
|
I blew it up to get the gold. Oh, well, I guess you caught me.
-------------------- http://www.theamericanright.com/ http://www.cnbc.com/id/15838446 http://www.climatedepot.com
| |||||||
|
I watch Fox News ![]() Registered: 03/23/06 Posts: 2,946 |
| ||||||
Quote: Wow! Read that link. Quote: -------------------- http://www.theamericanright.com/ http://www.cnbc.com/id/15838446 http://www.climatedepot.com
| |||||||
|
enthusiast Registered: 10/19/99 Posts: 977 Loc: inside my skull Last seen: 2 months, 1 day |
| ||||||
|
I agree with everything you said except for this:
Quote:It's the other way around. Corporations have control over governments, pretty much everywhere in the Western world. It's what shapes Western values and what destroys the world. As for the main question: why would the government, if they did it, specifically blow up the Trade Center? Well, several reasons, money being only one. I won't elaborate here, just give some clues. Assuming they did it, they would have wanted to make sure it worked. So there must be something wrong with the planes, possibly they were remote controlled by beacons, maybe there even weren't any terrorists on board. Anyway, something material must have been fishy, so that destruction of evidence (more thorough than from a kerosene fire) would have been desirable. The destruction of evidence also applies for WTC7. Speculation has it that the whole operation was controlled from that building, so eventual destruction of that one was required as well. Another argument for destroying 7 would have been yet another instance of destruction of evidence. Many people have pointed out that evidence from several financial scandals (e.g. Enron) was conveniently destroyed in the attacks. Google "WTC7 tenants" for more info. Besides, the government would have wanted maximal psychological impact, which the quick collapse seems to have provided. Also, a quick collapse meant a higher death toll than a slow collapse or no collapse at all (although I do agree the toll can be viewed as lower than expected, I won't get into this question). Finally, it is arguable that although the administration (provided they did it) wanted a psychological impact, they were not aiming for maximal destruction. They would have decided to sacrifice 3 buildings completely, accept damage to surrounding constructions, but they would never have run the risk of an uncontrolled collapse of the towers. Imagine the Twins falling over sideways in opposite directions. The economical damage might have proven too high. Controlled demolition allowed for damage control, even if this sounds paradoxical given the circumstances. All this is: assuming the government did do it. Assuming that, these explanations seem rational enough to me to explain why they would have demolished the buildings instead of just letting them burn.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
Still adding layers to your tinfoil beanie, I see.
Maybe you can answer for us some questions no other conspiracy theorist I've come across has been able to answer. This has to do with the claim that the towers fell not from the impact of the airliners and the ensuing fires, but instead from controlled detonations of explosives secreted in the buildings: -- How did the saboteurs manage to place explosives around the support pillars of the towers unnoticed? -- How did they manage to place those explosives on the floors directly below the area where each plane impacted? -- What would they have done had the planes impacted substantially below the floor where the charges were hidden? Or substantially above? -- How were the detonating mechanisms of the explosive charges able to resist the intense heat of the fires and still function when it came time to set off the charges? -- Why were the charges not set off simultaneously with the impact of the airplanes? What was the reason for delaying the explosions? Phred
| |||||||
|
Informer Registered: 04/01/06 Posts: 208 Loc: Chicago Last seen: 14 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
Watch the video man, it explains everything you just asked.
-- How did the saboteurs manage to place explosives around the support pillars of the towers unnoticed? -- How did they manage to place those explosives on the floors directly below the area where each plane impacted? =workers in the building admitted in interviews that sections of the buildings were closed for maintnance during the week before 9/11... -- What would they have done had the planes impacted substantially below the floor where the charges were hidden? Or substantially above? ---It was controlled. For a building to fall you take out the botom suports, not the top. Collision had little impact other than the spectacle it proided. -- How were the detonating mechanisms of the explosive charges able to resist the intense heat of the fires and still function when it came time to set off the charges? = They were lower in the building, there was not intense heat throughout the lower 80 floors. If there was everyone would have burned to death or had their skin melted off. -- Why were the charges not set off simultaneously with the impact of the airplanes? What was the reason for delaying the explosions? =Your arguement has no backup, the "official" reason for the collape was the fire melting the steel supports. It takes a while to melt.... Just watch the video -------------------- "People living deeply have no fear of death." "Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love." "Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
I'm not going to spend hours downloading yet another conspiracy video through my steam powered dialup modem.
You've seen the video, so I'm presuming the answers you gave are the ones presented in the video. Let's look at them, shall we? Quote: Which sections? The sections -- in both buildings -- immediately below the floors impacted by the planes? Different floors in each tower, remember. Got a source for that other than the video itself? A written source somewhere? Quote: Gee, too bad the buildings did not collapse from the bottom up, then. It's clear as day from the tapes of the collapses that they started at the impact points and proceeded downwards from there. Both films and still shots show that extremely clearly. Quote: See above. Quote: So let's get this straight. Although YOU don't believe the towers could collapse from steel being softened due to intense heat, the saboteurs did. This is why they waited for a while before setting off the charges... so that it would look as if the collapse came from heat-weakened girders. Phred
| |||||||
|
illegal alien Registered: 04/16/04 Posts: 2,146 Last seen: 5 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Heightened security alert had been lifted and bomb-sniffing dogs had been removed on 09/06: Quote: PLUS, security system had been knocked down due to a power down to "upgrade WTC's computer bandwith" on 09/08 and 09/09: Quote: So, on Friday through Tuesday morn., explosives could have easily been brought into towers. -------------------- ![]()
| |||||||
|
enthusiast Registered: 10/19/99 Posts: 977 Loc: inside my skull Last seen: 2 months, 1 day |
| ||||||
Quote:Nope, just giving answers to the question asked. Quote:Here's one possible explanation. From People Magazine: Quote: From New York Newsday: Quote:These are only clues, but they indicate it would not have been impossible to prepare. Edit: Oops, exclusive58, we posted almost simultaneously. Thanks for the additional information. Quote:Maybe that was of no concern. The planes could have been guided by beacons, so maybe they knew exactly where they would impact. Or maybe there were no beacons, and they didn't know exactly where the planes would impact. But anyhow, no-one can deny that a plane impact represents a substantial burden on the structural integrity of a building. If they blew up the central core at ground level, the whole building rested on the outside steel structure. So where, do you think, would it have snapped first? Right, at the impact points. Quote:I don't know. But then, I don't know everything, certainly not about explosives. But maybe some did explode on impact, but not enough of them for the buildings to collapse right away. Or, better even, if you follow what I said above: maybe the planes were remote controlled, so they knew where to place no explosives. Maybe there were explosives more or less everywhere except around the impact points. Quote:Again, I can't be sure, I didn't plan it. But I guess that would have looked very unrealistic, knowing even the Empire State building easily resisted a plane crash. But it's a good question. There are very good questions on both sides of the argument. I just think there are more troubling and unanswered questions coming from the 'inside job' side. My turn to ask you just one question now, Phred. You and others have urged people, and rightly so, to take into account the eyewitness reports about the Pentagon attack. As you reported, many people saw the plane hit, many people saw debris, etc. My personal opinion about the Pentagon attack is undecided, partly because of those accounts, and I acknowledge it is certainly possible that flight 77 hit it, although a few questions remain. But then, why do you remain completely deaf to the mass of eyewitness accounts, recorded on tape and included in several movies (I know, you've got a steam-driven modem, but that's no excuse), that consistently mention numerous heavy secondary explosions? Those accounts are from anonymous eyewitnesses, from TV reporters sent in live, from firefighters (I think they know what they're talking about), etc. Lots and lots of people who were there give very specific and consistent details of explosions that seem to match controlled demolition (bright flashes, crackling detonations, all just before collapses). Those are interesting accounts, because they were made on the spot, when no official version was available to influence, warp or censor said accounts. It's not because they haven't been rebroadcast as often as the Twin Towers' collapses (did you notice the near absence of WTC7 rebroadcasts?) that they no more exist or aren't worth looking at. So, when will you acknowledge those eyewitness accounts? Edited by Aldous (04/10/06 03:38 AM)
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 10/30/04 Posts: 127 Last seen: 7 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
This is stupid crap. If i was a conspirator (yeah right, that means a lot of people) i would nuke iran, then persuade the UN it was iraq who did it. You know? I certainly wouldnt shoot myself in the foot. That<s plain stupid. There is so many alternatives.
-------------------- -English is not my native language. So im not retarded, i'm just not very engligh articulate. Please forgive me for my bad writing! Thank you!
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
9/11 Questions ( |
11,141 | 90 | 03/11/06 03:27 PM by Aldous | ||
![]() |
Former German Defense Minister Confirms CIA 9/11 Involvement | 900 | 1 | 09/19/04 01:23 AM by afoaf | ||
![]() |
9-11 please wake up america. this is going to happen again. ( |
5,371 | 43 | 09/12/05 04:23 AM by Los_Pepes | ||
![]() |
9-11 moms want answers | 869 | 8 | 08/23/03 08:02 PM by Cornholio | ||
![]() |
Pop goes the Bush mythology bubble - Part 1: The 9-11 Commission | 1,229 | 4 | 12/18/04 11:43 AM by usefulidiot | ||
![]() |
Obama places second next to Chinese President Hu Jintao Forbes most powerful people | 1,072 | 9 | 11/08/10 11:08 AM by AmericanPsycho | ||
![]() |
Guerrilla News: Propaganda Since 9/11 Video | 1,222 | 6 | 07/02/02 04:44 PM by Thor | ||
![]() |
So now that the Justice Dept is going to release the Pentagon video ( |
2,348 | 33 | 05/20/06 09:30 AM by Andy21 |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 8,367 topic views. 0 members, 4 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||



Thank you!

