Home | Community | Message Board

Cannabis Seeds - Original Sensible Seeds
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: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Economist]
    #6104010 - 09/26/06 04:00 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

> So, no, Silverstein did not gain anything from 9/11

But what about WTC7? Didn't he make money from destroying that building?

(I don't mean to sound crass. This is something I have heard in rebuttal to your points above. I'm curious to the answer and I my ignorance in economics would shine if I tried to argue the point.)


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Seuss]
    #6104040 - 09/26/06 04:07 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

The lease and valuation numbers produced by the NYC Comptroller's office are for the entire complex (WTC 7 included), so the aforementioned numbers don't change, and he still came off losing money.

I know the conspiracy theorists say that Silverstein said "Pull it" when asked what to do about WTC 7, and interpret this to mean "destroy the building" instead of "pull the fire-fighting effort out".

I don't really understand how that could lead to a profit, because he would still be losing money on the entire site.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleHank, FTW
Looking for the Answer

Registered: 05/04/06
Posts: 3,912
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Economist]
    #6104125 - 09/26/06 04:41 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

He spent 3.5 billion on the buildings. Received 7 billion in insurance. What am I missing here?

Is he forced to pay for the reconstruction, of the buildings that won't be the same?

You don't take out record setting insurance policies and lose money, imo. I am certain many details have been left out of the public eye.

Silverstein sure made a good gamble there, only 2 months on the policy, wow.


--------------------
Capliberty:

"I'll blow the hinges off your freakin doors with my trips, level 5 been there, I personally like x, bud, acid and shroom oj, altogether, do that combination, and you'll meet some morbid figures, lol
Hell yeah I push the limits and hell yeah thats fucking cool, dope, bad ass and all that, I'm not changing shit, I'm cutting to to the chase and giving u shroom experience report. Real trippers aren't afraid to go beyond there comfort zone "

:rofl:

Edited by alpharedecho (09/26/06 04:43 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Hank, FTW]
    #6104362 - 09/26/06 05:50 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

alpharedecho said:
He spent 3.5 billion on the buildings. Received 7 billion in insurance. What am I missing here?



Clearly you didn't read the links I posted. The maximum amount he was ruled eligible to recieve was $5 Billion, and that is still in litigation, so he might recieve even less, meanwhile the reconstruction cost estimates top $6 Billion.

Furthermore, he was expected to recieve rents from all the tenants in the buildings for the duration of the 99-year lease, i.e. the investment was going to MAKE him money. However, we know from as early as 2002 ( http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/07/20/palmer.otsc/index.html ) that the lease itself became worthless (i.e. lost money for Silverstein) if the site did not generate income via rents. Even at the maximum payout, the insurance money would run out before the lease would.

Like it or not, Silverstein has, at this point, lost quite a bit of money compared with where he would be had 9/11 never happened.

Quote:

alpharedecho said:
Is he forced to pay for the reconstruction, of the buildings that won't be the same?



He's had to take out bonds to finance reconstruction, this is in the public record, and again, you could have read it in the links I posted. Furthermore, the $6.7 Billion reconstruction estimate is based on cost to construct square footage, NOT to build replicas of the towers.

Indeed, the actual construction costs will probably be higher once the additional aspects (the park, the memorial, etc.) are taken into account.

This was all in the NYC Comptroller's report which I already posted the link to.

Quote:

alpharedecho said:
You don't take out record setting insurance policies and lose money, imo. I am certain many details have been left out of the public eye.




So, despite evidence and math to the contrary, in your opinion he has not lost money. I just don't even know where to begin.

Do you have anything to back this opinion up with, do you have numbers or facts to prove he has not lost money? I would really love to see them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleHank, FTW
Looking for the Answer

Registered: 05/04/06
Posts: 3,912
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Economist]
    #6104510 - 09/26/06 06:32 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

As reported in The Washington Post, the insurance company, Swiss Re, has gone to court to argue that the 9/11 disaster was only one attack, not two and that therefore the insurance payout should be limited to $3.55 billion, still enough to rebuild the complex.

Update: WTC Leaseholder May Collect Up To $4.6B

A federal jury on Monday ruled that the assault on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center was in fact two occurrences for insurance purposes. The finding in U.S. District Court in Manhattan means leaseholder Larry Silverstein may collect up to $4.6 billion, according to reports. [Forbes.com 12/06/04]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/silverstein.html

So you are telling me, he is going to be made to pay more than the buildings were worth, because he was supposed to collect rent? I am not following. He would be made to rebuild something at the cost of 6 billion, when he paid 3.5 billion to LEASE it. I will believe that, when I see it.


--------------------
Capliberty:

"I'll blow the hinges off your freakin doors with my trips, level 5 been there, I personally like x, bud, acid and shroom oj, altogether, do that combination, and you'll meet some morbid figures, lol
Hell yeah I push the limits and hell yeah thats fucking cool, dope, bad ass and all that, I'm not changing shit, I'm cutting to to the chase and giving u shroom experience report. Real trippers aren't afraid to go beyond there comfort zone "

:rofl:

Edited by alpharedecho (09/26/06 06:33 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleHank, FTW
Looking for the Answer

Registered: 05/04/06
Posts: 3,912
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Hank, FTW]
    #6104523 - 09/26/06 06:34 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Also, if he is forced to take out bonds, for the reconstruction, will he hold any ownership to these new structures?

I refuse to believe he is losing money in all this, call it a hunch.


--------------------
Capliberty:

"I'll blow the hinges off your freakin doors with my trips, level 5 been there, I personally like x, bud, acid and shroom oj, altogether, do that combination, and you'll meet some morbid figures, lol
Hell yeah I push the limits and hell yeah thats fucking cool, dope, bad ass and all that, I'm not changing shit, I'm cutting to to the chase and giving u shroom experience report. Real trippers aren't afraid to go beyond there comfort zone "

:rofl:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Hank, FTW]
    #6104639 - 09/26/06 06:58 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

alpharedecho said:
So you are telling me, he is going to be made to pay more than the buildings were worth, because he was supposed to collect rent? I am not following. He would be made to rebuild something at the cost of 6 billion, when he paid 3.5 billion to LEASE it. I will believe that, when I see it.



You're using bad math, and you clearly still haven't read the NYC Comptroller's report, which would have cleared all of this up.

Imagine that the buildings are a car, if that makes it easier for you. A car decreases in value over time, a car that you bought new for $10,000 5 years ago may only sell for $2000 today. However, if you lose your car and have to buy a new one (these are buildings, so buying it used is out of the question) you will have to pay more than the $2000 cost of your old car.

Quoting from the NYC Comptroller's report:
"The WTC Towers - $6.7 billion. The WTC Twin Towers (WTC Nos. 1 and 2) were built
for about $1 billion in the early 1970s. This is nearly $5 billion in 2001 dollars, so that the WTC
inflation-adjusted book value, using straight-line-depreciation with 30 percent of its life used up
(30 years of a 100-year useful life), would be $3.5 billion. But on a replacement-value basis, i.e., the cost in 2003 to rebuild the WTC complex of 13.4 million square feet (sf) at $500/sf would be
$6.7 billion."

So, he paid $3.5 Billion for buildings that were worth $3.5 Billion, BUT just like buying a new car if your old one stops working, the cost to replace is quite a bit higher than the "book value".

He also isn't *made* to pay anything. He could just sit back and let the site stay empty. However, that would result in him losing his initial investment, which he paid for by taking out loans. Silverstein didn't just have $3.5 Billion sitting around, he borrowed most of it, his biggest loan came from the GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corp. in the amount of $800 million. He borrowed from smaller amounts from several different sources to make up the rest, again this is all on the public record (and was available in the links I posted earlier).

When you take out a loan, you have to pay back *MORE* than the amount borrowed. Thus, even with the insurance payouts, Silverstein would end up in the hole *unless* he builds something on the site capable of generating revenue, i.e. collecting rent.

So...I'll ask again, do you have ANY evidence whatsoever that Silverstein made money, or are you refusing to believe the available evidence out of sheer faith?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Hank, FTW]
    #6104701 - 09/26/06 07:12 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Also, this link:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/silverstein.html

Is total bull. Nowhere there do they have any reports about the valuation of the towers, nor do they have estimates for rebuilding, they simply assert that $3.5 Billion would be "more than enough" without siting any evidence.

Furthermore, they issue contradictory quotes. On the one hand, they claim that a year's worth of revenue from the site would be $200 million, but we know that Silverstein's lease only required him to pay $100 million a year, and yet they also claim that the investment wasn't worthwhile. $200 million in revenues, with a leasing cost of only $100 million, sounds pretty worthwhile to me.

Also, the Business Week quote is taken from a book written in 1999! You can follow the link, if you don't believe me. Talk about out-of-context, especially since the Port Authority reworked the renting scheme to make the building profitable in 2000! (you can read about that here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3601/is_39_47/ai_74942372 )

So, what have we learned about the authors of whatreallyhappened.com?

1) That the authors are good at taking things out of context
2) That the authors are bad at math

Edited by Economist (09/26/06 07:18 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleHank, FTW
Looking for the Answer

Registered: 05/04/06
Posts: 3,912
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Economist]
    #6104746 - 09/26/06 07:22 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

I understand now.

However, I will wait to see what is spent on the new WTC, out of Silverstein's pocket.

Don't you find it curious, the timing of the purchase and insurance policies. I guess that's what captivated me, there are no coincidences! lol


--------------------
Capliberty:

"I'll blow the hinges off your freakin doors with my trips, level 5 been there, I personally like x, bud, acid and shroom oj, altogether, do that combination, and you'll meet some morbid figures, lol
Hell yeah I push the limits and hell yeah thats fucking cool, dope, bad ass and all that, I'm not changing shit, I'm cutting to to the chase and giving u shroom experience report. Real trippers aren't afraid to go beyond there comfort zone "

:rofl:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 6 months, 28 days
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Hank, FTW]
    #6105289 - 09/26/06 09:38 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

There certainly are coincidences.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Redstorm]
    #6106016 - 09/27/06 04:55 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

> I understand now.

Woot! I think I understand as well... which is amazing considering how my brain turns off whenever money is mentioned. Thanks Economist!

> I guess that's what captivated me, there are no coincidences!

This is actually a good point. If one steps back and looks at the events of 9/11 as a whole, as portrayed by the conspiracy crowd, there are just too many coincidences for it all to have "just happened". However, when one starts to toss out the misleading statements and outright lies used by the conspiracy crowd, the coincidences, for the most part, start to go away.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAldous
enthusiast
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 980
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 7 days, 3 hours
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Seuss]
    #6107501 - 09/27/06 02:19 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Seuss said:
When  you can no longer support your position in the debate, you resort to ad hominem.  Typical.


Sure I did here, and legitimately so.

From Wikipedia:
Quote:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is a logical fallacy. [...] In contrast, an argument that instead relies (fallaciously) on the positive aspects of the person arguing the case is known as appeal to authority.


You started it by using appeal to authority: you state things about controlled demolition without substantiating them at all, so I guess I'm supposed to believe you on your word, since you're such an expert. At this point, I remembered a thread where you talked out of your ass about precisely the same subject, controlled demolition. I just reminded you of that, and I maintain that I won't believe these claims, provided they remain unsubstantiated, especially knowing you made them. Ad hominem indeed, but justified in this case, I don't see a logical fallacy. Once bullshit always bullshit, unless you substantiate. Seems fair to me.

Talking about experts, this is what I wrote in a thread about a year ago:
Quote:

Show this footage [the collapse of WTC7] to any expert, and he will call it a brilliant job.


You may have missed this thread, in which it appeared I was exactly right. The footage was finally shown to a *genuine* expert, and much to his dismay, he had to admit the collapse of WTC7 could only be controlled demolition [i.e. he first didn't know about the whole story, the dismay only came when he learned of the implication of what he had said; but read through the thread]. Surprisingly, this particular thread didn't seem to attract that much attention. Go figure...  :confused:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Aldous]
    #6107713 - 09/27/06 03:07 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Aldous said:
You may have missed this thread, in which it appeared I was exactly right. The footage was finally shown to a *genuine* expert, and much to his dismay, he had to admit the collapse of WTC7 could only be controlled demolition [i.e. he first didn't know about the whole story, the dismay only came when he learned of the implication of what he had said; but read through the thread]. Surprisingly, this particular thread didn't seem to attract that much attention. Go figure...



I think you might be misinterpreting what he actually said.

The conclusion reached by the expert is "I can't explain it".

While he initially believed it could have been a controlled demolition, his evidence for this is that the building collapsed at its base, not higher up. However, when he was told that the building collapsed only 7 hours after the plane crashes, he said that it would take hard work and a large team to get that done. When he was further told that the building was on fire, he said he couldn't explain how a controlled demolition could have been pulled off under those circumstances.

Furthermore, the expert did not appear to be adequately informed by the news team.

He sites the collapse from the bottom as his reasoning for a controlled demolition, however the news team does not tell him about the 20-story impact hole in the base of the building (as stated, he had no information about the building beforehand, he had to be told later that it was on fire). A large hole, complete with fires, near the base of the building, could easily explain why the collapse appeared to originate at the bottom, which is the same conclusion that other experts, namely NIST, reached.

He is also shown video of the collapse from an angle that neither shows the fire nor the impact hole. The video is also taken from street-level looking upwards, so he misses another crucial piece of evidence that was hidden because of the angle of the film: the first part of the building to collapse was actually the penthouse. This is apparent when the building is viewed from another angle, as seen in the TNN news footage on this page: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

But, none of you have to take my word for it, you can watch the video yourself, and draw your own conclusions, it's available here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgoSOQ2xrbI

Edited by Economist (09/27/06 03:14 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Aldous]
    #6108480 - 09/27/06 06:31 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

> Sure I did here, and legitimately so.

Heh... I thought you were referring to me in the thread reference, but see from Economist's post that I misread. My apologies.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAldous
enthusiast
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 980
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 7 days, 3 hours
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Economist]
    #6110051 - 09/28/06 02:20 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Economist said:
I think you might be misinterpreting what he actually said.


No, I'm not. I actually have more info than the video presents. The makers of the program had a discussion on a Dutch forum and answered many questions. They gave a few off camera comments the expert made. Someone from the forum also called the expert afterward.

Quote:

The conclusion reached by the expert is "I can't explain it".


What he can't explain, is how the demolition could have been prepared. When he makes this comment, he isn't even aware yet that some people argue that it was prepared before 9/11.

Quote:

While he initially believed it could have been a controlled demolition, his evidence for this is that the building collapsed at its base, not higher up. However, when he was told that the building collapsed only 7 hours after the plane crashes, he said that it would take hard work and a large team to get that done. When he was further told that the building was on fire, he said he couldn't explain how a controlled demolition could have been pulled off under those circumstances.


... but he still maintains it was controlled demolition. That's also why this was among the final conclusions of the program. If he had withdrawn his initial conclusion, they would have said so. Instead, they clearly stated that after close scrutiny, one can only conclude WTC7 was brought down by explosives and that further inquiry is urgently needed. And mind you, these people are unbiased journalists, not wacky conspiracy nuts. They came into this with an open mind. BTW, their conclusions on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon tend to go along with the official story, so obviously they weren't looking for a conspiracy here.
Also, if you read further in the same thread:
Quote:

On a more general note, someone spoke to the demolition expert after the TV broadcast, and it's remarkable to see the same thing happening as with Van Romero. He's a bit upset about all the fuss his comments have elicited, and says there's no reason at all to doubt the official story. He even says he remembers the media coverage at the time of the attacks clearly stated the building had been voluntarily brought down as a precaution, although he himself admitted this would be extremely difficult under normal conditions, and implied it was impossible with the base of the building on fire. Of course, he's not telling the truth, since - allegedly except for Silverstein - no-one ever officially stated that the building had been demolished on purpose to avoid worse damage or whatever.


... and he didn't remember WTC7 in the first place before he was asked his opinion about it.
That's the interesting thing about it: even after he had been fully briefed about the circumstances, he refused to alter his conclusion of controlled demolition. Instead, he preferred to make up a memory of a media version that never existed. As I said, nobody wants to be the expert challenger of the official story, and I can understand them. Therefore, I think the program makers used exactly the right strategy in initially withholding information. It allowed the expert to judge impartially, without knowing what he's supposed to see or conclude. When the bias of possible implications comes into the picture, they tend to step back from their initial, unbiased conclusions (see Van Romero).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Aldous]
    #6110678 - 09/28/06 09:50 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

I just don't understand your argument.

By your own admission, the expert stated explicitly that there was no reason to doubt the official story.

Furthermore, I still see no comment whatsoever from the expert after he was shown the 20-story hole in the base of the building. Simply saying "it was on fire" isn't enough. I want to see his reaction when he was shown images of a 20-story hole in the base of the building with fires on at least 6 floors.

You would rather believe that either "fear" or "conspiracy" got to the expert than take his final word which was, according to you, "There is no reason to doubt the official story".

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAldous
enthusiast
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 980
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 7 days, 3 hours
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Economist]
    #6111412 - 09/28/06 01:13 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Except that, according to him - and there he's either mistaken or deliberately distorting facts - the official story says it was controlled demolition planned on the spot for the sake of precaution. Please read everything I wrote.

Apparently (but I wasn't there, I only have what the program makers said on the Dutch forum), he was given all the available info after his initial conclusion of controlled demolition, and he never took it back. I don't know if they made him read the complete NIST preliminary report or not, but it seems they gave him enough to base a thorough conclusion on. Which he obviously had trouble with.

Whichever way you're trying to spin this, the expert's conclusion was: obvious controlled demolition. I'm sorry about that.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineViveka
refutation bias
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/21/02
Posts: 4,061
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Aldous]
    #6112172 - 09/28/06 04:31 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

The spin is all yours. The "official story" never asserts controlled demolition of 7WTC. It's your interpretation of a Silverstein quote that asserts that.

There should be a :grasping at straws: emoticon.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Aldous]
    #6112186 - 09/28/06 04:36 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Aldous said:
Whichever way you're trying to spin this, the expert's conclusion was: obvious controlled demolition. I'm sorry about that.



Except that "obvious controlled demolition" is itself a spin.

The reality (from the news program) was that he couldn't explain how it could be done. You're claiming that the Dutch forum gave him all the facts, but in the clip from the show, they explicitly don't tell him about/show him the huge hole in the base of the building.

Finally, if he stated "there is no reason to doubt the official story" then I don't see where you're going from there. Are you saying they gave him a bad version of the official story? If they are, then they did not infact give him "all the facts". No matter how you look at it, something's wrong with taking his word that it was a controlled demolition.

Either they didn't give him all the facts, and as a result he assumed it was a controlled demolition which he believed, again without all the facts, to be what took place.

Or, they did give him all the facts, which would inherently include the NIST report, and he responded that there was no reason to doubt the official story, which was that it wasn't a controlled demolition.

I find it impossible to see how they could show him "all the facts" without showing him the official story.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAldous
enthusiast
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 980
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 7 days, 3 hours
Re: 9/11 doubters discard the truth [Re: Viveka]
    #6114121 - 09/29/06 01:04 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Can't you read, or do you misread me on purpose?

I never stated the official story asserts controlled demolition of WTC7. That's what the expert said, and I said that was strange, since he also asserts that it was the version that was officially given immediately after the attacks. It is also strange because he was given all useful information, which did include that the official story was collapse from damage and fire.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Prominent barking moonbats who don't buy official 9/11 story ekomstop 1,150 4 10/29/04 03:32 PM
by silversoul7
* Aversion to conspiracies somebodyelse 1,459 15 07/03/03 01:49 PM
by DoctorJ
* your local PD as 9/11 commission... Annapurna1 700 6 10/05/04 01:15 PM
by ekomstop
* Why the media's conspiracy theory is better than yours
( 1 2 all )
ekomstop 4,265 31 09/23/04 03:27 PM
by ekomstop
* The September 11 X-Files wingnutx 1,483 9 08/17/03 01:34 AM
by BleaK
* Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fact'
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )
ekomstop 17,550 176 09/28/04 12:14 AM
by ekomstop
* Gore Vidal claims 'Bush junta' complicit in 9/11
( 1 2 all )
Eightball 2,324 24 10/29/02 09:54 AM
by Xlea321
* Fahrenheit 9-11 is textbook disinfo AhronZombi 565 6 07/14/04 09:07 AM
by whiterasta

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
7,149 topic views. 1 members, 5 guests and 12 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 0.032 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 15 queries.