Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6983|132 and Bush

JimmyBotswana wrote:

The towers were specifically designed to withstand multiple hits from jetliners.
Not true, they were designed to withstand a hit from a 707 assuming it was low on fuel and lost in the fog looking to land and  off course..

The lead structural engineer reflects on the rise and fall of the World Trade Center towers.

It appears that about 25,000 people safely exited the buildings, almost all of them from below the impact floors; almost everyone above the impact floors perished, either from the impact and fire or from the subsequent collapse. The structures of the buildings were heroic in some ways but less so in others. The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed.

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/we … enDocument
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7056|Canberra, AUS

I wrote:

Conspiracy theories fail.
I also found out today that the WTC towers falling = 1.7 KILOTONS of TNT. KILOTONS. Think you could've faked that?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
JimmyBotswana
Member
+82|6967|Montreal

Kmarion wrote:

JimmyBotswana wrote:

The towers were specifically designed to withstand multiple hits from jetliners.
Not true, they were designed to withstand a hit from a 707 assuming it was low on fuel and lost in the fog looking to land and  off course..

The lead structural engineer reflects on the rise and fall of the World Trade Center towers.

It appears that about 25,000 people safely exited the buildings, almost all of them from below the impact floors; almost everyone above the impact floors perished, either from the impact and fire or from the subsequent collapse. The structures of the buildings were heroic in some ways but less so in others. The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed.

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/we … enDocument
I can only answer with my previous post:

Frank DeMartini, Head of Construction: "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

It's true that the building was not specifically designed to withstand multiple hits, but the man most knowledgeable about how the buildings were built believed they could withstand multiple hits based on the buildings strength and design.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6983|132 and Bush

10,000 gallons of jet fuel is not hardly a mosquito. You think the head of construction has a better understanding than the head architect ?

As far as world trade center 7, building number 2 fell into it and took out the bottom section of it (the southwest corner). It stood sideways for 3 hours before it collapsed.
https://Tampastorm.smugmug.com/photos/98036884-L.jpg
Xbone Stormsurgezz
JimmyBotswana
Member
+82|6967|Montreal

Kmarion wrote:

10,000 gallons of jet fuel is not hardly a mosquito. You think the head of construction has a better understanding than the head architect ?

As far as world trade center 7, building number 2 fell into it and took out the bottom section of it (the southwest corner). It stood sideways for 3 hours before it collapsed.
http://Tampastorm.smugmug.com/photos/98036884-L.jpg
10,000 gallons that burned up on impact in that huge fireball we all saw on t.v.

If the damage was so severe to the structure of the building why did it stand for 3 hours and then collapse perfectly onto its own footprint in 10 seconds?
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6983|132 and Bush

I am pretty sure I remeber seeing smoke and flames spewing out of the buildings until they collapsed.

JimmyBotswana wrote:

If the damage was so severe to the structure of the building why did it stand for 3 hours and then collapse perfectly onto its own footprint in 10 seconds?
Umm gravity? Let me ask you where are the "squibs" from the controlled demolotion?
Are you totaly just going to ignore the big chunk of the building missing in that picture ?

Edit:bigger image

https://Tampastorm.smugmug.com/photos/98039641-L.jpg

JimmyBotswana wrote:

10,000 gallons that burned up on impact in that huge fireball we all saw on t.v.
Seems to be some stuff burning here.
https://Tampastorm.smugmug.com/photos/98040875-L.jpg

Last edited by Kmarion (2006-09-26 00:25:51)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
JimmyBotswana
Member
+82|6967|Montreal

Kmarion wrote:

I am pretty sure I remeber seeing smoke and flames spewing out of the buildings until they collapsed.

JimmyBotswana wrote:

If the damage was so severe to the structure of the building why did it stand for 3 hours and then collapse perfectly onto its own footprint in 10 seconds?
Umm gravity? Let me ask you where are the "squibs" from the controlled demolotion?
Are you totaly just going to ignore the big chunk of the building missing in that picture ?
No you remember seeing black smoke smoldering, as most of the fuel was consumed on impact. Whatever flames there were were minimal. Desks, papers burning, etc.

If gravity brought down the tower then why didn't it fall right away? Why did it wait 3 hours? Obviously even with the big chunk missing the tower was still able to stand, otherwise it wouldn't have waited for 3 hours before falling.

Squibs in Building 7? Here you go.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/no … harges.htm
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6983|132 and Bush

JimmyBotswana wrote:

No you remember seeing black smoke smoldering, as most of the fuel was consumed on impact. Whatever flames there were were minimal. Desks, papers burning, etc.
Minimal ? wow..looks like more than a few desk there.
https://Tampastorm.smugmug.com/photos/98042147-L.jpg
That video of a corner of the building looks like it could be air expeliing to me as the floors compacted on each other. No where near enough evidence for me to dismiss the thousands of people who where there and said this..

Firefighter Quotes on WTC7

"WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

According to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, there is a bulge in the southwest corner of the building between floors 10 and 13. [Firehouse Magazine, 4/02]

Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, “At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged.” [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]

Deputy Chief Nick Visconti also later recalls recounts, “A big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.” Captain Chris Boyle recalls, “On the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.” [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/htm...igro_Daniel.txt

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/htm...ski_Richard.txt

"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/htm...IC/Cruthers.txt

"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - William Ryan
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/htm...yan_William.txt

Last edited by Kmarion (2006-09-26 00:41:52)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
JimmyBotswana
Member
+82|6967|Montreal

Kmarion wrote:

JimmyBotswana wrote:

No you remember seeing black smoke smoldering, as most of the fuel was consumed on impact. Whatever flames there were were minimal. Desks, papers burning, etc.
Minimal ? wow..looks like more than a few desk there.
http://Tampastorm.smugmug.com/photos/98042147-L.jpg
That video of a corner of the building looks like it could be air expeliing to me as the floors compacted on each other. No where near enough evidence for me to dismiss the thousands of people who where there and said this..

Firefighter Quotes on WTC7

"WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

According to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, there is a bulge in the southwest corner of the building between floors 10 and 13. [Firehouse Magazine, 4/02]

Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, “At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged.” [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]

Deputy Chief Nick Visconti also later recalls recounts, “A big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.” Captain Chris Boyle recalls, “On the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.” [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/htm...igro_Daniel.txt

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/htm...ski_Richard.txt

"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/htm...IC/Cruthers.txt

"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - William Ryan
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/htm...yan_William.txt
Of course people were concerned about Building 7 collapsing because Buildings 1 and 2 had just collapsed. Firefighters were worried about buildings 5 and 6 collapsing, and no one was allowed near them either. Buildings 5 and 6 were extensively damaged from the collapses of the twin towers, much more than Building 7. They had most of their exterior walls shredded off, and were basically skeletons of themselves with some walls still hanging on. Yet neither collapsed.

These "air expulsions" as you term them cannot be the floors compacting on each other because the floors did not compact on each other you can see it in the video. The building collapsed from the bottom up. The top floors did not collapse onto each other. Nice try though.
superfly_cox
soup fly mod
+717|7163

THIS IS NOT A THREAD FOR WHETHER 9/11 HAPPENED AS IT HAS BEEN REPORTED

For the sake of this thread I am giving all you conspiracy theorists the benefit of the doubt and conceeding that 9/11 was the work of the American Government.  My question is why couldn't they pull off the same type of operation in "finding" WMD's in Iraq??
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6983|132 and Bush

I asked that a very long time ago as well in these forums. Wouldn't it had been much simpler to plant wmd's on foreign soil?

Last edited by Kmarion (2006-09-26 01:02:10)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
JimmyBotswana
Member
+82|6967|Montreal

superfly_cox wrote:

THIS IS NOT A THREAD FOR WHETHER 9/11 HAPPENED AS IT HAS BEEN REPORTED

For the sake of this thread I am giving all you conspiracy theorists the benefit of the doubt and conceeding that 9/11 was the work of the American Government.  My question is why couldn't they pull off the same type of operation in "finding" WMD's in Iraq??
Not fair. You can't expect to start a thread about 9/11 conspiracies then not expect people to ridicule the theories then not expect people who believe the theories to answer back.

I already answered your question. There is no answer. Maybe the whole point was just to go into Iraq. They don't care whether they find the WMDs they are there now that's all they wanted. There is no answer to your question. Happy? Didn't think so. T.S.
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6943

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

Somalia, Bosnia, thats not military force, trying to enforce his will or his wanted change......yeah........ok.
What were the US' interests there?
JimmyBotswana
Member
+82|6967|Montreal
ummmmm wrong section bubbalo
Anfidurl
Use the bumper, that's what its for!
+103|6975|Lexington, Kentucky
Wait, wait... haven't you people figured it out yet?

Bush Sr. decides to leave Saddam in power.
Saddam threatens Bush Sr.'s life.
Bush Jr. rides in, on at-best misinterpreted, at worse fabricated intelligence.

It's just a Vengance war.
Aenima_Eyes
Member
+20|7033

JimmyBotswana wrote:

golgoj4 wrote:

JimmyBotswana wrote:


I did answer his question by saying WE DON'T KNOW WHY THEY DIDN'T FIND WMDs in IRAQ ALL WE KNOW IS THERE WERE EXPLOSIVES IN THE THREE TOWERS AND THAT IS ENOUGH TO REQUIRE A NEW INVESTIGATION.

Jesus christ open your fucking ears.

And Miller if jet fuel can demolish steel skyscrapers at freefall speed, turn concrete to dust and make it all land in  its own footprint then why would companies pay millions of dollars to have professional demolition teams demolish their buildings?
I know canadians are dumb but this is getting outta control. Please provide something other than your internet dective badge or shut the fuck up. Its bad enough you tinfoil hat tards makes the rest of us intelligent people looks so crazy. Seriously. Provide actual fact or shut the hell up. As it stands you dont understand the concept of fire so I really suggest that you find someone smarter to do the talking.
Nicely done insulting all canadians like that I hate to tell you but Americans are only considered intelligent by other Americans, the rest of the world laughs at you guys stuffing your faces while watching your Nascar and baseball.

Ok, evidence. Before I bring forth the overwhelming evidence that explosives were used, why don't you prove ME wrong by showing me exactly how it is I don't understand fire and how the fire was hot enough to cause the steel to be broken into convenient 20 foot sections and the concrete to be pulverized into a fine dust. Because to most people, it is pretty obvious fire cannot do that.
Ummm. . .maybe they use explosives to bring down buildings because A) Jet fuel is a helluva lot more expensive and B) Because you'd have to sacrifice someone's life to have them fly a damn plane into the building....and that's just stupid beyond belief.

Conspiracy theorists never think their shit through very good.  So. . .a missile hit the Pentagon right?  So where did the airplane. . .the pilots. . .the terrorists. . .and the people on board the flight go that WASN'T flown into the Pentagon but disappeared nonetheless?  Did they use their alien technology to beam them to another dimension or something?

Also. . .if demo charges were used to bring the Twin Towers down where did all the explosives come from?  How long did it take them to bring them in and set them up?  You're also telling us that NO ONE saw anything unusual like big freaking packs of TNT sitting next to the support columns in their offices?  Or are you telling us that it was like Fight Club and everyone was working for Bush and "The Man" and they gladly sacrificed their lives to make it look believable?

Also. . .conspiracy theorists are putting the chicken before the egg.  WHY would Bush or anyone want to knock the towers down?  To start some New World Order where they can play Big Brother and watch everybody?  They pretty much were already doing that.  So that Bush could kill Saddam and make more money off of oil?  Sorry. . .but the Bush family is already nice and tight with the Saudis and rich as hell.  They don't NEED any more cash.

Nice job by the way from the guy spouting off about all of us watching NASCAR and whatnot.  I guess since the rest of the world laughs at us so much that's why they are always asking for our money and bitching when we don't pull their ass out of the fire, right?
Aenima_Eyes
Member
+20|7033
On a side note. . .it is fairly obvious the towers fell because of the planes.  If you watch homemade footage from people on the street that day, you can see massive flames coming out of windows from floors SIGNIFICANTLY BELOW where the planes actually hit.  Pretty good evidence to support that the fuel flooded the floors and weakened the steel.

Also. . .that was the reason the terroists picked trans-continental flights from the East Coast out to L.A. and whatnot.  They knew they needed to have their planes loaded down with fuel.

See. . .intelligence educated people always win over raving couch potatos.
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|7072|Tampa Bay Florida
There's not anything itelligent or educated about knowing the truth about 9/11.... they explained everything.  You could either take their word for it, or not. 

Unless of course, you've experimented by flying a plane into a building and testing the results yourself?
Aenima_Eyes
Member
+20|7033

Spearhead wrote:

There's not anything itelligent or educated about knowing the truth about 9/11.... they explained everything.  You could either take their word for it, or not. 

Unless of course, you've experimented by flying a plane into a building and testing the results yourself?
Hrm. . .ok.  Yeah. . .you're right.  Let's take the "explanations" of a bunch of people with no credentials and no expertise in the area over the engineers and physicists and whatnot with the PH.Ds and expert knowledge of the subject.

Fact is. . .planes hit the world trade towers.  The towers then fell shortly after.  A+B=C.  A+B+Spurious and totally unrelated information does not =C.
JimmyBotswana
Member
+82|6967|Montreal

Aenima_Eyes wrote:

See. . .intelligence educated people always win over raving couch potatos.
lol way to prove your point. You obviously didn't read any of the thread so..........
JimmyBotswana
Member
+82|6967|Montreal

Aenima_Eyes wrote:

On a side note. . .it is fairly obvious the towers fell because of the planes.  If you watch homemade footage from people on the street that day, you can see massive flames coming out of windows from floors SIGNIFICANTLY BELOW where the planes actually hit.  Pretty good evidence to support that the fuel flooded the floors and weakened the steel.
I would really like to see that can you send me a link to your source?
<[onex]>Headstone
Member
+102|7084|New York

kessel! wrote:

i dont know if the us government was directly involved with 9/11. but i do think the towers went down with exlosives. why the government wanted it covered up is beyond me.
Sure did, The towers were made to withstand 747 going at low speed, Not planes Fully fueled, going in excess of 500-600 MPH. Holy cow, They were HUGE destructive missiles for christs sakes. And where they hit, Do you think steel doesnt melt and bend, thus rendering it weak and prone to failure? Go to a basic Physics class and then go watch the tapes of the towers falling again. Gravity is a wonderful concept. Sheesh.
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6901|Πάϊ

superfly_cox wrote:

Answer me this one simple question and it will all become very clear for me.  If the US government was so clever, so devious, so well organized, and so determined as to commit the events of 9/11 themselves then how is it that the same government/forces (that be) were not able to "find" Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq?  Would it have been so difficult to stage a mock discovery of WMD's considering they controlled Iraq and had just publicly staged the most elaborate hoax (9/11) in the history of man kind?  Would have been peanuts in comparision...

For you conspiracy theorists, if you want to take a shot at this question use some intelligence and don't offer silly reasons like "to throw off people about 9/11".  You've already given the US Government alot of credit (for competence) with all the 9/11 conspiracy theories!  So why couldn't they produce some WMD's to get the entire world off of their case?
Good question this... although I regret to see that by answering I'm immediately going to be labeled a conspiracy theorist, aka an unreliable simpleton.

First off, as far as the whole conspiracy theory is concerned, I know I've talked about this damn Northwoods Document a thousand times but it seems nobody pays any attention to it. Whenever anyone mentions something about a conspiracy you all rush to that democratic prick Michael Moore and the Loose Change documentary.

And although I give credit to Michael for "Bowling for Columbine" and a few other truly enlightening docs he's made, I must admit that his only goal is to discredit the republicans. He is a democrat and does not hide it, and the only thing he wants is to see his favorite party in power. He's on the right track with his research and all, but because he is so positive about the democrats he cannot - or doesn't want to - see the whole truth.

On the other hand, Loose Change is the kind of documentary that will create a lot of fuss, but it alone cannot explain, prove or justify the 9/11 events. What I mean is, even though I saw the so-called explosions on the floors that hadn't collapsed yet and all, a video alone is not going to convince me of anything. I need some other kind of proof, more undeniable, less debatable etc.

The Northwoods Document is there to answer everyone's question: "Is it possible that our own government might have thought of that?" Well, yes they sure thought about it! And this documented thought together with what we are not told could prove who is behind the 9/11 events.

The government wisely chooses not to address this issue at all, in an effort to discredit it, make those who support the idea sound sort of like Mulder, you know... X-files theme in the back 'n all that.

As far as the WMDs are concerned, I thought I heard the US government say that they had actually found some... at some point... only they were few and old...? And then the UN claimed there were none at all. Then someone said that there were evidence of WMDs being recently destroyed by Saddam, and some others said they had been moved to Iran (how convenient), but that faded into oblivion as well. The info was purposefully blurry that's for sure.

Bottom line: maybe they could plant some WMDs of their own, and maybe they couldn't (due to the presence of the International Peace-keeping Force??). Maybe they tried and failed. Or maybe it doesn't matter that much any more, since the American people according to statistics don't care so much about whether there were WMDs or not.
In that sense its good that you are asking us (and yourself I guess?) this question because that's how the answers will come.

Last edited by oug (2006-09-26 05:35:04)

ƒ³
Rogue_Delta
Member
+6|6837
I live in Milan, Italy and most night shows on 9-11 had some f'ing conspiracy-happy-communist opposed to regular people who were supposed to believe the official version of facts (regular journalists, local CNN executives, etc.) I was sooooo pissed these people even got the chance to express all their sorry-ass crap on the same day of 9-11.
Italian liberals talk redistribution and got the COMMUNIST PARTY elected (yes, we still have an official communist party, and theyre governing right now, toegther with another bunch of democratic losers). This is to say that I can discuss conspiracy yes or conspiracy no arguments with americans but cant stand hearing it from these people.
Lucien
Fantasma Parastasie
+1,451|7035
I'm undecided, there's too many coincidences, but at the same there are so many bullsh*t arguements from the conspiracy theorists.
https://i.imgur.com/HTmoH.jpg

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard