Home | Community | Message Board

Avalon Magic Plants
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: Luddite]
    #6057695 - 09/13/06 04:07 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Why me?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibledownforpot
Stranger
Male
Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 5,715
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: RosettaStoned]
    #6057829 - 09/13/06 04:50 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

RosettaStoned said:
Quote:

Yea... Those people are illogical brainless fucks.




And hurling insults at people for thinking differently than you makes you what? Einstein?




Actually yea, I am a moderate.


--------------------



http://www.myspace.com/4th25


"And I don't care if he was handcuffed
Then shot in his head
All I know is dead bodies
Can't fuck with me again"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblebuckwheat
Cynically Insane

Registered: 12/09/02
Posts: 11,179
Loc: Not Enough Characters to ...
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: zappaisgod]
    #6057836 - 09/13/06 04:51 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

zorbman said:
I wonder if anyone is investigating the possibility that aliens had something to do with the collapse?




Steven Jones is hot on the case. Or maybe it's Jesus. Who knows?
http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext%20and%20figures.htm




What does this have anything to do with testing a piece of steel, which is all he did?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: buckwheat]
    #6057880 - 09/13/06 05:02 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Mr. Jones has done a good bit more than that, hasn't he? For a fuller examination of my take on Mr. Jones and his compatriots go to MR&P (only MAIA knows why it's there. I have my guess) and read the thread "Fury as academics claim..." Arch whackjob.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLuddite
I watch Fox News
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: zappaisgod]
    #6057925 - 09/13/06 05:11 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Here's the answer.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The floors didn't pancake.
Also, the math in this link http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html
doesn't seem to take into account that when one floor falls on the next one below it it would cause it to fall faster then if it fell without being hit by anything falling onto it from above. In physics, students usually do experiments with pucks on air tables to study collisions (similar to balls on a pool table). When I took physics, we did these experiments, took polaroid pictures while using a strobe light, measured the postions of each puck on the picture and did the calculations based on Newtionian mechanics. Whoever made this page http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html
should have studied collisions, but seemed to have left out the calculations where one floor hits the one below it and gives it an initial velocity downward.

Edited by Luddite (09/13/06 05:21 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLuddite
I watch Fox News
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: Luddite]
    #6057987 - 09/13/06 05:26 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

You can calculate the time it takes for something to fall in freefall from the equation here under "How Far" http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/1DKin/U1L5d.html

Rearrange this equation d = 0.5 * g * t^2 and solve for t.

d = 1368 ft
g = 32.2 ft/s^2

Edited by Luddite (09/13/06 05:29 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCatalysis
EtherealEngineer

Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 1,742
Last seen: 15 years, 8 months
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: Luddite]
    #6057993 - 09/13/06 05:28 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

The floors didn't pancake.




These implicit assumptions seem to be the backbone of the 9/11 conspiracy theories. i.e. Assume the floors pancaked and show how it couldn't happen, assume the molten material was steel and say it wasn't hot enough, etc.

No one has ever addressed the 10,000 page structural analysis study by the American Society of Civil Engineers and NIST. There is no point in arguing it until this study is addressed because points that have been covered ad nauseam just keep being brought back up again as if they are new ideas.

No one ever talks about how the new WTC 7, which was rebuilt, now has a steel reinforced concrete core to prevent the exact same type of failure from happening.

You conspiracy theorists are still living in Sep. 12 2001. They are already designing new buildings based on the knowledge that was gained from analysis of the structural failure of WTC.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinerubixcubies
porch monkey ferlyfe
Male User Gallery

Registered: 08/05/06
Posts: 1,218
Loc: ottawa on
Last seen: 14 years, 9 months
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: dr0mni]
    #6058033 - 09/13/06 05:42 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

its a CIA plot to make a puppet out of bush so they made the ballots in Florida hard to punch and then find out about the plot but decide to enhance it because they believe it will not work but the u s is running out of oil and the people "behind" it are middle eastern and there just filled with it and it all played into their hands and then they take away everybody's rights all halfassedly in order to allow people to still try to get the bombs on board to milk the ridiculous precautions they now take which is really just a plot to help the airlines make money on soda....
and if your wondering this is just pure speculation i have no reason to believe it really


--------------------
i'm a very evolved ape you know.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: dr0mni]
    #6058128 - 09/13/06 06:18 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

How can anything violate the laws of physics?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #6058493 - 09/13/06 07:50 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

A theory can. Anyway, more on Mr Jones and his con freres:

"This is what Brigham Young University physics professor Steven Jones, put on leave by BYU last week, believes — once again, despite the preponderance of facts showing otherwise."

Just go here;
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjc2MjZmOTI2YzM0M2ZjOTUwZWU4YWRiMjRlOTVjZGM=


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLuddite
I watch Fox News
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: RosettaStoned]
    #6058585 - 09/13/06 08:06 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

RosettaStoned said:
Quote:

Yea... Those people are illogical brainless fucks.




And hurling insults at people for thinking differently than you makes you what? Einstein?





Check this out. The Quran proves Relativity and Relativity proves the Quran.
http://www.speed-light.info/

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedr0mni
My Own Messiah
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/21/04
Posts: 2,921
Loc: USF Tampa, Fl
Last seen: 16 years, 9 months
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: Economist]
    #6058885 - 09/13/06 09:17 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Economist said:
I'm so happy that the person who wrote this "scholarly link" about how the collapse "violates the laws of physics" actually themselves violated the laws of physics.

Allow me to point out some of the problems with the analysis:

First:
The "pile" left after the collapse was very large, and extended quite high into the sky at points, so her initial assumption that the time for the collapse can be accurately calculated by measuring a ball falling from the top of the towers to ground level is already flawed.

Remember though, the times for collapse can be corroborated with the seismic data. The second collapse was about two seconds shorter, most likely because it landed on top of the pile from the first one that you mentioned. And the top of the roof is a fine place to start since it must hit the ground before the seismic waves can stop.

This model is an IDEALIZED modle, assuming a vacuum or zero to negligable air resistance. Even if the pile was 368 feet (almost 30 stories, or 27% of original height) high, it would only cut the idealized free-fall time by less than 1.5 seconds. Compare that to the estimated 30 seconds and almost 100 seconds, and it becomes insignificant.


Second:
In the animation posted on the site, you can obviously see that the collapse began at the impact point, NOT at the roof, which is what all of her simulations assume. Several floors were infact simultaneously in free fall, because the section above the impact point collapsed together, all floors falling at the same time.

Yes, all the floors, falling SYMMETRICALLY at the same time.

but like I said above, the roof can set as the initial height because it must hit the ground before the seismic activity stops.


Third:
In what is the biggest loas of crap ever: THE "PAPER" IGNORES ACCELERATION DUE TO GRAVITY!

Um, what are you talking about. She used 32ft/second^2 as the gravitaional constant. I've run the equation through a grapher and gotten an identical graph to hers. so no, she in no way left out the big G

The whole "billiard ball" simulation is complete and utter crap because it assumes that each successive collapsing floor begins with an initial velocity of zero, completely ignoring the exiting velocity of the floors already traveling downwards.

When the top couple of floors collapsed, they caused the floors below them to begin collapsing, but they transferred not only the energy necessary to cause collapse, but their existing *momentum*. Thus the lower floors would begin falling at the velocity the floor above them was already traveling, and would accelerate due to gravity from there.

Since this is completely ignored in the cited "paper" I am forced to conclude that the author could use a physics class, and has succeeded in proving nothing...

She not only mentions momentum, she points out what a huge amount of it would be lost due to the pulverization of concrete into fine dust

sorry, but you have debunked nothing




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 6 months
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: dr0mni]
    #6059006 - 09/13/06 09:42 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

dr0mni said:
Remember though, the times for collapse can be corroborated with the seismic data. The second collapse was about two seconds shorter, most likely because it landed on top of the pile from the first one that you mentioned. And the top of the roof is a fine place to start since it must hit the ground before the seismic waves can stop.

This model is an IDEALIZED modle, assuming a vacuum or zero to negligable air resistance. Even if the pile was 368 feet (almost 30 stories, or 27% of original height) high, it would only cut the idealized free-fall time by less than 1.5 seconds. Compare that to the estimated 30 seconds and almost 100 seconds, and it becomes insignificant.




So, a few reasons why this is wrong:
First, in her model she measured time to hit the ground, so she did NOT in fact take into account collapsing onto already existing debris. (This is fairly obvious in all of her charts.

Second, I believe that the actual number (less simultaneously falling floors and collapsing onto debris) would probably be around the 10-12 second range (i.e. collapsing slightly slower than free-fall) and on that scale, a difference of 1.5 seconds is VERY significant.

Third, I hate to tell you this, but the measurements of G take into account things like air resistance, so the whole "idealized model" thing was already killed by the numbers she used.

Quote:

dr0mni said:
Yes, all the floors, falling SYMMETRICALLY at the same time.

but like I said above, the roof can set as the initial height because it must hit the ground before the seismic activity stops.



This is fine, except she suggests, in her model, that none of the floors could be falling simultaneously. The whole "billiard ball" model is contigent upon each ball falling and hitting the ball below it, not all the balls being dropped at the same instant. However, it's fairly obvious that several of the floors DID infact begin falling at the same instant (equivalent, in her model, to several of the balls being dropped at the same time).

As with my first complaint, I don't think this will account for the complete difference, but even if it only shaves off 1-2 seconds, we're talking about a total collapse lasting around 10-12 seconds in slightly-slower-than freefall, so 1-2 seconds is very significant.

Quote:

dr0mni said:
Um, what are you talking about. She used 32ft/second^2 as the gravitaional constant. I've run the equation through a grapher and gotten an identical graph to hers. so no, she in no way left out the big G



No, she didn't take into account acceleration due to gravity, as acceleration due to gravity means that each floor would being to fall at the speed the floor above it was already travelling (hence the whole "acceleration" bit). She started each successive floor at a velocity of zero, thus missing acceleration due to gravity.

Quote:

dr0mni said:
She not only mentions momentum, she points out what a huge amount of it would be lost due to the pulverization of concrete into fine dust

sorry, but you have debunked nothing




She neither quantifies how much momentum would have been lost, nor does she have any evidence backing up the composition of the dust flying out of the tower.

She includes absolutely no models or equations on the matter, she just says she "thinks" that it would be sufficient to have an impact on the downward velocity.

Given that NIST and the American Civil Engineers have both said differently than she does, and they're packed with experts who have put together models including equations, material compositions, etc. while Jane Doe won't even tell us who she is, you will please forgive me if I believe them and not her.

I think this paper is pretty well debunked, and if you continue to believe in it, well, that's your choice, as long as you recognize it involves taking the word of a complete stranger who offers no equations, evidence, or proof, over the experts at NIST and the American Civil Engineers Association.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblebadreligion2good
Uncertain
Male

Registered: 02/21/06
Posts: 888
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: Economist]
    #6059171 - 09/13/06 10:26 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Sounds debunked to me, the conspiracy theories put out there by loose change are a pain in the ass, and all those people trying to proove the documentary is right are waisting there time. The fact is the towers definitely went down, and airplanes definitely smashed into them, and people definitely died. Those are the undeniable facts, those are the ones that matter, thats what we know for sure. All these theories are irrelevant, trivial.


--------------------
All I know is that I dont know.

Row, row, row, you boat, gently down the stream.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a dream.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAsante
Omnicyclion prophet
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 87,230
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: dr0mni]
    #6059182 - 09/13/06 10:29 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

What tends to throw people off:

Concrete and steel are very solid things. Strong stuff on a human scale. But if you build on a large scale like the WTC, the weight forces pressing down on the structure are so immense, and the objects so large, that these buildings on their scale are incredibly fragile. Once it moves strongly, thick reinforced concrete crumbles like crushing a biscuit in your hand.

You can park a truck on a tiny column of concrete, but whack it with a hammer and it cracks.

People are baffled by how it looked how the towers fell but conspiracy or no, its fall from the outside doesn't look that alien if you mind the forces at work.

A skyscraper hardly will ever fall over, and will almost always fall straight down, explosives or not, because the gravity force of the heavy materials is enormous and pulls it down under its own weight. To fall over the Towers would've needed a huge push from the side to seriously interfere with the downward motion. That extra energy wasn't there. Floors will collapse far easier than serve as a sliding plank to let the top part slide off. With those forces, the building can only go straight down.

Then there is the speed with which the building fell down. This becomes less remarkable when you realize that the top part slamming down on the lower part sends down a crushing shockwave, so that the lower part already is weakened and internally crushed to a great extent before the top part falls down on it, so all this weight atop all this structural weakness can make the collapse go quite fast.

Then there are the puffs of smoke way below the collapsing zone. That has got to be explosives, right? Umm, no, they might be caused by explosives, but you got to realize enormous shockwaves travel down the tower, throught the concrete and steel, at hundreds of meters per second. These shockwaves, at that scale, near inevitably cause pressure effects far beneath the collapsing zone. A big thump crushes a gypsum ceiling and busts out a window, and there's a smoke eruption.

It could be explosives but why? The structure needs no weakening, because the shockwaves will do that efficiently by themselves. It will be messy, but if you're a rogue government that really DOES take down the Towers, you *want* messy because otherwise it would look overly neat and suspicious to the thousands of demolition experts in the world. Once the initial collapse occurs in the "right" way the whole building will inevitably come down, and it takes modest math and physics to orchestrate that if you're an evil government branch with access to all structural information.

The only place where explosives would make sense would be in the very beginning, to get the initial collapse happening. This would have to be close to the crash sites. Imagine being a welltrained group of navy seals with some portable charges to commit the unspeakable act. That would be the utter mission from hell: there is NO way to know whether you even can get high up in the building after a plane slammed into it. Once there, there is NO TELLING what you will find. How many floors are destroyed, to what extent, will it be approachable due to heat etc? This means you'd have to plan the exact placing of the charges on the fly, judging by structural weakening by the plane which you cannot oversee or perhaps even get to, with ridiculously small amounts (portable) of explosions that have to be placed in such a specific way as to be undetectable. You need to have watched only a bit of Discovery Channel to see that thats a near impossible mission with enormous uncertainties on a crucial mission. Nobody sane would conduct such a mission, the risks of failure (lets say 1% chance of succeeding) are just too great especially for the major mission of a well-planned conspiracy. Think about it from the viewpoint of the huypothetical evil government branch planning 9/11, add just a little knowledge, stir the pot and the unlikelyness jumps right at you.

So: falling straight down fast with puffs of smoke low in the towers are perfectly normal building collapse behaviors without any intervention.

An on the fly demolition mission is so unrealistic it isnt even funny.


...and now the but!

I have no very probable explanation for what the steel seemed to have done. I just don't know.

There is compelling evidence that a lot of people seemed to know this would happen. Most compelling are unusual financial transactions, which were numerous and statistically improbable.

It is likely that some things were not "as alleged" about September 11, but the visual collapse of the Towers is in no way remarkable, even to be expected, even though it looks too weird to be natural.


--------------------
Omnicyclion.org
higher knowledge starts here

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineViveka
refutation bias
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/21/02
Posts: 4,061
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: Asante]
    #6061950 - 09/14/06 06:07 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Excellent post W_S. But which unusual financial transactions are you referring to, the put options? Because those have been quite debunked.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/6/2/62018.shtml
http://www.911myths.com/html/selling_amr.html

Or are you talking about the Larry Silverstein business which has also been thoroughly handled and put to rest by various members of this website.

Or something else?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAsante
Omnicyclion prophet
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 87,230
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: Viveka]
    #6062165 - 09/14/06 07:02 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

I haven't seen those transactions debunked sufficiently, for me to dismiss them. I'm no construction or demolition expert but I researched a lot of it from all sorts of angles to find out for myself. I've got a strong drive to want to know everything about anything that interests me and I know how to feed my data hunger.

There just are too many reports of all sorts of people that seemed to have known it would happen. It's plausible, and you just have to recall the New Orleans disaster to see that even with previous knowledge of an imminent disaster a government can unbelievably screw up, without an evil agenda.

I believe they knew it was going to happen, but either screwed up in stopping it or were made to screw up by a group within the government with an agenda of its own.

Remember the CIA was also up to their nose in the Heroin trade during the vietnam war, and it was sometimes smuggled in the bodybags of fallen soldiers so awfully unpatriotic things do happen.


--------------------
Omnicyclion.org
higher knowledge starts here

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblebuckwheat
Cynically Insane

Registered: 12/09/02
Posts: 11,179
Loc: Not Enough Characters to ...
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: Viveka]
    #6062194 - 09/14/06 07:10 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Viveka said:
Excellent post W_S. But which unusual financial transactions are you referring to, the put options? Because those have been quite debunked.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/6/2/62018.shtml
http://www.911myths.com/html/selling_amr.html

Or are you talking about the Larry Silverstein business which has also been thoroughly handled and put to rest by various members of this website.

Or something else?




What larry silverstein buisness specifically?

Also i looked around that site to look for explanations for terror drills hapening on the same day that the attacks happen. They do try to disprove Alex Jones calculation of a one in a 3,715,592,613,265,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance for the 7/7 drill. Fair enough,but they don't even have a conclusive answer. But when you combine the 9/11 NRO drill and 14 others on that day. And the one on the Oklahoma City Bombing. Then what. They didnt even Address the the NRO drill on 9/11 instead one that happened a year earlier? What's up with that? Trying to confuse people by giving the impression that was the drill we truth seekers talk about.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 6 months
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: buckwheat]
    #6062222 - 09/14/06 07:16 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

buckwheat said:
What larry silverstein buisness specifically?



Some have tried to suggest that because Silverstein took out a very large insurance policy on the towers within 2 months of the attacks, that clearly he knew something was going to happen.

However, he also signed the lease within 2 months of the attacks, so the insurance is easily explained. Furthermore if you run the numbers, even if Silverstein was able to recoup the total amount he claimed the insurance companies owed him (he claimed $7 billion, they paid out between 3 and 4, he took them to court and lost) he still would have come out behind because the lease was valued at $8 billion prior to purchase. Silverstein also had extensive realestate investments throughout the city, all of which immediately became less valuable post-9/11 as people and businesses began to move out, driving rents down.

Ultimately, it just doesn't add up to anything out of the ordinary.

Quote:

buckwheat said:
Fair enough,but they don't even have a conclusive answer. But when you combine the 9/11 NRO drill and 14 others on that day. And the one on the Oklahoma City Bombing. Then what. They didnt even Address the the NRO drill on 9/11 instead one that happened a year earlier? What's up with that? Trying to confuse people by giving the impression that was the drill we truth seekers talk about.




I think the drills were just a likely response to "the whole grid blinking red". The government knew something was going down, but they were unable to figure out what, so they decided to hold LOADS of drills in order to keep everyone on alert.

I can't prove that, but then it's no less likely than any of the conspiracies.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAsante
Omnicyclion prophet
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 87,230
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: Economist]
    #6062264 - 09/14/06 07:27 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:


I think the drills were just a likely response to "the whole grid blinking red". The government knew something was going down, but they were unable to figure out what, so they decided to hold LOADS of drills in order to keep everyone on alert.





Drills are often on moments notice for the ones undergoing them, but planning drills and having drillsd conducted takes time. And then there is the fact that if you want something done, you have to announce that "this is not a drill" to yank people out of their stupor :wink:

So that is unlikely.


--------------------
Omnicyclion.org
higher knowledge starts here

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Millionaire Offers $100,000 For Scientific Proof WTC Towers Collapsed As Bush Administration Claims
( 1 2 all )
ekomstop 4,973 37 12/16/04 08:29 PM
by ekomstop
* GAO - Bush administration violated anti-propaganda law grib 1,899 18 05/21/04 03:37 PM
by Mushmonkey
* Surviving the Bush Dictatorship - Martial Law
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )
wingnutx 7,019 169 08/23/03 01:48 PM
by wingnutx
* Sharia law -- gotta love it
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Phred 5,514 101 11/25/04 11:59 AM
by zahudulallah
* dealing with law enforcement ChromeCrow 1,414 4 08/26/02 02:29 AM
by Lana
* morality and the law
( 1 2 all )
hongomon 2,257 33 11/20/02 02:08 PM
by BleaK
* international law crunchytoast 1,292 18 11/15/05 07:18 AM
by crunchytoast
* Law Too Unconstitutional For Even Justice Department to Defend Ravus 661 3 01/26/05 06:54 PM
by zappaisgod

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,011 topic views. 1 members, 8 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.039 seconds spending 0.014 seconds on 15 queries.