Interesting.
Printed From: 1CMM.net
Category: Public Forums
Forum Name: General Chat
Forum Discription: Talk about anything and everything
URL: http://www.1cmm.net/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2266
Printed Date: 24/May/2024 at 2:28pm
Topic: Interesting.
Posted By: EvoMograk
Subject: Interesting.
Date Posted: 31/July/2007 at 12:12pm
|
What do you all think about this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE&mode=related&search - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE&mode=related&search= video? |
Replies:
Posted By: Goffin
Date Posted: 31/July/2007 at 1:45pm
|
I think I need to grab a drink. brb ------------- Ball punching for Teh Win! 
|
Posted By: Verdant Force
Date Posted: 31/July/2007 at 4:27pm
|
This Vid has allot of crap in it, some of it is spot on, but they trew allot of crap in there just to make it longer...
we alraidy had a thread like this, i dont think anybody wants a replay of it, well unless people where actualy ready to have a debate, instaid of just posting insults every time sombody posts information...
|
Posted By: Interpol
Date Posted: 02/August/2007 at 2:18pm
|
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/index.html - http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/index.html This article literally owns every single point made in Loose Change. ------------- |
Posted By: Verdant Force
Date Posted: 02/August/2007 at 3:42pm
|
Pol, have you even read that? its sorting out the nonsense from the real stuff.
if your going to try and 'own' evrething in a vid, you might want to read it first
( look at the points with the gold coins beside them )
|
Posted By: Stairway
Date Posted: 02/August/2007 at 7:27pm
| Im not sure if thats the article, but I do remeber hearing that there was a report written debunking everything in Loose Change. |
Posted By: Interpol
Date Posted: 03/August/2007 at 2:04am
|
Actually, I did read the article--quite extensively. It's doing far more than pointing out any oddities in 'Loose Change,' it's basically saying that almost all the points the short film has to go on are entirely meaningless. Be it through sources, statistics, or just fucking theories that Loose Change proposed--all irrelevant. By the way, the movie just uses shit reporting without any fucking context--to have so many people think that they're getting useful information through some [random] guy on the internet is ridiculous. The people (no offense) that commonly believe in this have no real knowledge of history. I'm talking about having read about presidencies and about government. No president would be faced with a decision to attack his own people, nor would it ever go unchecked with the press. I mean, fuck, Nixon resigned for wiretapping Democrats. You think a President who attacked his own country would get re-elected? Note: Also, the article is an objective viewpoint of Loose Change (though it still owns it), unlike Loose Change, which takes a strong subjective, extremist viewpoint. ------------- |
Posted By: Verdant Force
Date Posted: 03/August/2007 at 8:05am
|
loose change is a horrid film, i agree. but i found it funny you posted this and claimed it 'owned' evrething, when it actualy pointed out the few good points it had.
IE
 ( link leads to http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/demolition.html - http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/demolition.html )
i wish they would have spent more time on WTC7, it wasent hit by a plane, and only a small amount of damage from debree ( almost every other building around the towers took more damage from debree, WTC7 was one of the farthest building serounding the 2 towers ) and it fell from 'fires' hours later. IN UNDER 7 seconds! most demolition experts from countries other then USA agree that WTC7 had to be done by the best of profesionals, because it was one of the most perfect demolitions they had even seen...
this guy is just one, his reaction from first seeing the video
http://antagonise.blogspot.com/2007/03/wtc7-dutch-demolition-expert-danny.html - http://antagonise.blogspot.com/2007/03/wtc7-dutch-demolition-expert-danny.html its also worthy to note that WTC7 was completly ignored in the 911 commission report.
unfortunatly, you 'debunker' also dismises "The Rodriguez account" a point i find valuable.
Willie Rodriguez http://www.911forthetruth.com/pages/Rodriguez.htm - http://www.911forthetruth.com/pages/Rodriguez.htm
this man is a hero, saved 15 lives at the WTC and just bearly escaped in the final seconds by diving and rolling under a firetruck. why havent you heard of him?
because he heard an explosion PRIOR to the plane hitting the WTC, by a second or two.
|
Posted By: Preach
Date Posted: 03/August/2007 at 4:24pm
|
It's all lies and bullshit. Anyone who believes that stuff should just hit themselves in the head with a tack hammer repeatedly. Afterwards, I have some ocean front property in Arizona for you to buy on the cheap!
------------- |
Posted By: Verdant Force
Date Posted: 03/August/2007 at 7:56pm
|
Obviously, since sombody needs to take a hammer to your head before you beleive the official story...
can you spot the Bullshit and lies in this video?
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=5761607508452529493&q=911+bush&total=6715&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2 - http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=5761607508452529493&q=
|
Posted By: Interpol
Date Posted: 03/August/2007 at 9:12pm
|
There's nothing to that--the President is just a retard. ------------- |
Posted By: Verdant Force
Date Posted: 03/August/2007 at 9:54pm
|
Right, so when he clearly says he 'saw it on the tv' and 'the tv was obviously on' on 9/11... the day where evrebody remembers where they where, what they where doing, and how they heard it first, this man forgot how he first heard verry thing that would affect his Presidency the most.
and its not like he said this YEARS after, this was 3 months after. a retard maybe, but his memory is not that bad.
|
Posted By: Interpol
Date Posted: 04/August/2007 at 12:21am
|
Actually, I'm not sure if it was public knowledge at the time where he was and how he had received the information. So actually, I think he was using it probably for dramatic effect or whatever. Realistically, the vast majority of media would not let a conspiracy on this scale pass--especially after the dozens of news organizations that researched it after the release of Loose Change. Seriously, more people died on 9/11 than on Pearl Harbor. I know it's hard to imagine that a small group of people can have such a devastating impact on the lives of so many, which is why we fall to conspiracy theories--so it doesn't make us seem as vulnerable and gives meaning to the deaths of thousands. It's the same thing that happened with Kennedy's death, in that so many people believed it impossible for our President, the leader of the free world, to die to the actions of a lone gunman, completely out of his mind. These things, however, happen. There's really no point in arguing it further, I could post a ton of links debunking Loose Change, as the search 'Debunking Loose Change' alone yields over 275,000 results on Google. In the end, I guess, believe whatever you want to. ------------- |
Posted By: Preach
Date Posted: 04/August/2007 at 2:27am
|
Your such an idiot Verdant. So much so that it is painful to watch someone flounder around in a pile of nonsense and half-truths and claim it to be gospel. Please stay in your ignorant world filled with tin-foil hats and black helicopters that are circling your house... the rest of us don't want you in the real world.
------------- |
Posted By: Fidelio
Date Posted: 04/August/2007 at 7:55am
| .......... aaaaand this is why we don't have religious or political conversations. |
Posted By: [Hoe]
Date Posted: 04/August/2007 at 4:39pm
|
Though the people who believe George Bush was in on "it" have some questionable points, I find it hard to beleive that our gov. could do all the planning for 9/11 and not plant WMD in Iraq.
How hard could planting some WMD in Iraq be compared to 9/11? I guess Bush was just busy though with planning the whole Katrina thing. At least he saved some face with dropping the steel overpass with that tanker truck so he could prove fire can melt steel.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Verdant Force
Date Posted: 04/August/2007 at 10:35pm
|
Preach thats the second time you post without adding anything to the conversation... please stay out of it if you dont want to have an actual conversation, and just want to trow out the same old bland empty insults, you sound like a broken record.
i used to think like you preach, i really did, i though they where all loony's and cooks, and the loose change film only helped to re-inforced that. i was fooled, for a year or two, by all the propeganda from your president. then, one of my friends came to me and started telling me about it, i wanted soo bad to disprouve him, i bought the 911 commision report,(your official report) and read every last word... after reading the book, i finaly gave in.
only a few chapters cover the collapse of the towers, in it they mentioned that their models of the towers DID NOT FAIL, they could NOT cause it to fail with damage similar to the ones in the towers. so they gave up and built a computer program to simulate it, and of course that worked... because anything can be made to work on computers. dont beleive me? buy the book for yourself and read it.
they dont even MENTION WTC7, not once,as well as another building (saint nicolas church) they should have both been in there. and MOST of the chapters are on 'how to prevent this from happening again'. most of the suggestions have not been introduced...
if you wont hear it from me, maybe you will hear it from sombody who was there. who worked there, who got sick and is deing from being at ground zero, a victim like many others. the victims and their famaly's arent calling for revenge, they want a proper investigation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78r6Xq3JKQs - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78r6Xq3JKQs
Pol, forget about loose change, loose change is crap... if your really think thats where all this is coming from your a fool. but to continue the train of though about bush being able to watch the first impact, they did have prior knowledge of an attack,
here is a memo given to the president on august 6th,
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html - http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html
and there is evidence of a hole slew of warnings givin to them prior to 9/11, from pretty much evrewhere around erupoe.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=4012031369927989631&q= - http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=4012031369927989631&q=
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&warning_signs:_specific_cases=foreignIntelligence - http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&warning_signs:_specific_cases=foreignIntelligence
i will be the first to admit i dont have every anser, i bearly know anything. but i make an effort to gather as much information as i can.
Hoe here just mentioned somthing about melting steel? of course steel melts, at a certain tempurature, but jet fuel doesnt burn hot enough to melt it. it is enough to weaken it yes.
so, lets say, hypotheticly, that the plane crash and fires cause WTC 1 and 2 to collapse, as the fuel from the planes caught fire and weakened the steel enough to make the load too much for it to support.
that still does not explain molten steel at the base of the towers. MOLTEN STEEL and weeks or months later, it was still there... and before you say somthing silly like ' oh, but the collapse of the towers might have caused the heat' or somthing like that, the NIST denies that there even was molten steel there.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6859326227000084752&q - http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6859326227000084752&q =
here is a site with more information then i could ever look at, but its a good starting point. http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/ - http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/
|
Posted By: Interpol
Date Posted: 04/August/2007 at 11:16pm
|
Originally posted by Verdant Force Pol, forget about loose change, loose change is crap... if your really think thats where all this is coming from your a fool. but to continue the train of though about bush being able to watch the first impact, they did have prior knowledge of an attack, here is a memo given to the president on august 6th,
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html - and there is evidence of a hole slew of warnings givin to them prior to 9/11, from pretty much evrewhere around erupoe.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=4012031369927989631&q= -
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&warning_signs:_specific_cases=foreignIntelligence - Ver, the only reason why I referenced Loose Change so much is because... well, that's why the thread was created. Do you realize the scope of the president's job? Overlooking one memo is very much in the realm of possibility, considering the thousands of new threats the government learns of daily. In fact, I'd guarantee that you would find at least one memo in any given circumstance that any US president has been involved in, countering their final decision (either for the better or for the worse). Examples: Memo's sent to Kennedy to not go through with the Bay of Pigs; Memo's heading to Johnson to not expand forces in Vietnam, etc. Simply put, not every threat can be taken seriously. As the old adage goes, hindsight is 20/20. And what Hoe said; why not plant weapons of mass destruction if invading Iraq was their final goal? In fact, if the government is so heartless as to kill its own citizens, why not just target more insurgent forces with missiles--at the expense of Iraqi civilian lives (more common now in neighborhoods for troops to go in and secure a city or a portion of one). This isn't 1939, nor is it V for Vendetta. I simply find the case you're proposing an impossibility. ------------- |
Posted By: Verdant Force
Date Posted: 06/August/2007 at 1:08am
|
like i said before pol, i dont have every anser,i dont pretend or think i do. why did they not plant WMD? maybe they would have been easily tracked back to usa... maybe they DIDIENT NEED TO? they are still there right now arent they? there is no 'exit plan' in sight, anywhere. so, why would they have needed to plant the WMD to stay? but see, now im the one making up my own theory, i dont have any information on that.
i dont deal with things other then facts, so i cant anser anything about the WMD issue. but there are still people out there who beleive that they did find WMD's... because the though has been seared into their skulls by mind numing repetativness.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-7171313181958445313&q - http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-7171313181958445313&q =
but, i dont blame them, since your 'News' released stuff like this
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=6650561572332776267&q - http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=6650561572332776267&q =
(going to make a bit of fun of your president here, because pretty much everything he says these days is funny as hell to me)
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=6276292210262805511&q - http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=6276292210262805511&q =
lol, look at his face after he finish hes sentance.. he is like ' Oh shit, did i really say that? .. dam it )
the fact is the president had a memo on the 6th, saying that Bin laden was determined to attack. and as far as i know, this was the last memo the president had seen before the attack, as he went for a month long vacation that august, and he REQUESTED the memo. your free to prove me wrong on that 'last memo before 911' thing, i am not certain about that, and im actualy pretty busy this week end so i dont have time to look it up.. then, 3 months after 9/11, he admited to WATCHING the first plane hittin the tower BEFORE he went into the classroom.
the fact that you THINK that he said it as a publicity stunt is your THEORY.
you MADE THIS UP, what information do you have to back it up?
you lie to yourself to make yourself feel safe again... and i dont blame you
a found a page a little while ago, with some nice intel. in it, there are some things i dont fully understand, but, im not a pilot... so i dont understand what stuff like 'ground effect' other then the fact that your plane reacts diffrently when its close to the ground... but anyway
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/index.html - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/index.html
in it i find this quote from a much larger chunk of text, that i find intresting.
"Hani Hanjour. Reported to have 600TT and a Commercial Certificate (see quotes right margin). Hani tried to get checked out in a 172 a few weeks prior at Freeway Airport in MD. Two seperate CFI's took Hani up to check him out. Baxter and Conner found that Hani had trouble controlling and landing a 172 at 65 knots. Bernard, the Chief CFI, refused to rent him the 172. I have instructed many years. I have soloed students in 172's when i had 300 hours as a CFI. How anyone could not control a 172 at 600TT and a Commercial is beyond me. Flight Schools keep going till you "get it" if you are a bit rusty, and then rent you the plane. They are in business to make money after all. .right? The Chief CFI basically refused any further lessons and basically told him to get lost. All this can be confirmed through google searches."
( For those who dont know, Hani was the guy that was sopposably in the pilot seat when he flew his plane into the pentagon )
and, also they examine the discrepancies betwen the flight data recorder, and the inforation they gave in the 911 commision report(MAJOR differences betwen the two). they interview a few Air force fighter pilots and even an interview with a former boston air traffic controler.
i dont beleive all the looney crap i hear out there, because there is allot of it. i dig down for the stuff that is has substance, has a backing, has information relating to it, and can be proven...
example, here is obviously a mistake, on part of BBC. reporting WTC7 colapsing before it actualy does ( by 20 minuts or so ).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc& - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc&
you can see WTC7 on the upper right of the cityscape...
what i find FUNNY about the whole 9/11 coverage, is that BBC LOST THEIR FOOTAGE! ALL OF IT!... on quite possibly the most important news day of our time, and they LOOSE IT!.. wtf?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html
( i know the article is about the video link i posted above, but they say they lost ALL their footage in it... )
|
Posted By: Goffin
Date Posted: 06/August/2007 at 10:54am
|
if you think i have the energy to read this, lol to you sir. ------------- Ball punching for Teh Win!
|
Posted By: Interpol
Date Posted: 06/August/2007 at 1:52pm
|
Currently, it's necessary to have had WMD's in Iraq, as the war is unpopular at the moment. Had there actually been cause for us to go in (we thought there was, but that was based on faulty information), the war might have been in a much more popular state, and the President's approval ratings may have gone above 30 percent. The real conspiracy is that the administration altered the intelligence to fit their agenda, and gain traction for going into Iraq. They couldn't even do that, as it was clearly revealed by every politically focused program. Besides, why wouldn't the government reveal that they had found WMD's? Do you think the government killed it's own people to purposely create an unpopular war, and destroy their own party's advantage in seating, both in the House and the Senate? Think, no really, think--what was there to gain? You're throwing a lot of articles/links around, but none by credible resources. There's a reason why it's better to read the major newspapers--because they are often fact checked and thus keeping the integrity of their articles. Yes, there are instances where you can't rely on even many major news outlets--it isn't perfect--but it's far more reliable than something on YouTube. Please don't use Ann Coulter as a source of information. She's not credible in any way (she isn't bipartisan and isn't a journalist). One last thing, let me ask you, do you think that the BBC was given information on 9/11 beforehand? Then they fucked up on their reporting, and had accidentally reported in advance? Doesn't it make more sense that they just had wrong information at the time of the report? You've created a theory, and are finding facts to support that theory. Instead, what you should be doing is looking at the facts (all of them), and seeing where it points to. Logic doesn't hurt either. ------------- |
Posted By: Verdant Force
Date Posted: 07/August/2007 at 1:51am
|
First off,clearing up 2 mistakes in my post... i was makin fun of her for beleiving (allong with 20% of americans) that they DID find WMD's in iraq, she is not alone... i do not beleive she is a credible source of info, and i was obviously poking fun at her.
and i was saying i AGREE with BBC that they made a mistake, there was a TON of confusion going on that day, and i seriously dont doubt it was just a mistake. ( hence why i put it after saying 'i dont beleive every crazy story out there' )
as for logic... when has anything Bush and Cheney done EVER made sence?
as for the credibility thing, yeah ok, il agree, allot of it is skethcy. but that pilot for truth used information given out by NIST, the 911 commision report people, and other official sources for their comparisions. and in fact, they actualy use footage provided by them in some of the comparisons.
plus, allot of the things i have presented are from the verry people that where there that DAY, sorry if i find them more credible then people afterwards, who make up stories that the 'explosions' where the cause of exploding power boxes, when there WAS no power in the towers after the planes hit.
you want logic? here is 2 quick things that are somewhat hard to notice, but once you see it, you know somthing weird is going on...
 i know you have all seen this picture, it was pasted on allot of front pages back in the day... look at the metal beam in the second white circle, this is steel, 4 inches thick, cut like a hot knife throu butter, and there is even residue from somthing around the outside of the beam... now yes, i think metal beams would take damage in sutch a collapse, but, this beam is not 'damaged' it is not warped, or bent in any way, it is 'cut' if it would have been done by another object falling into it, hard enough to snap it in half, it would not have remained in sutch a perfect rectangle shape. (the beam itself, not the edge that was cut... )
now, the 3 other circles dont mean anything to me, i was looking for a version of the picture without the circles, but i gave up... you cant really see the top of the circle on the left, the 3rd circle looks like it was just the top of the beam, and the one on the right you cant really see that well...
im looking for the video i spoke of earlier, where you can see debris flying back UP at about a 35 degree angle to hit wtc7.. altho it is finding harder then i remeber finding that specific camera angle...
in the meantime, since you seam to think nobody of any importance beleives this... here is a list of many well informed people who beleive.
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/ - http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
and, a video of MIT Engineers dicusing the WTC collapse's ... you know, people who know what they are talking about
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6237708642374175617&q - http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6237708642374175617&q =
|
Posted By: Verdant Force
Date Posted: 08/August/2007 at 8:33pm
|
i take that part about, with the picture... i was tottaly wrong on that one, i did no research on that prior to posting it.
turns out, after about a week, they sent some guys ahead of the heavy machines to cut up some stuff that was in the way... and there is no way to determine the date on this so, i take all that back... i DID do some heavy duty research, from some stuff from official sources. Goverment sites and whatnot, and the 911 commission report, and even some FAA sites... anyway, here goes
From http://www.insightful.com/infact/911/corpus/report_470_460.html - http://www.insightful.com/infact/911/corpus/report_470_460.html "We have determined that the impact time was 9:03:11 based on our analysis of FAA radar data and air traffic control software logic."
"AA Flight 11 died at 8:46:40 and UA Flight 175 at 9:03:11" seismic data from
http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/publications/download/911pentagon.pdf - http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/publications/download/911pentagon.pdf and http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html - http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html Impact 1 at North Tower - AA Flight 11 Time of impact|magnatude| Duration 08:46:26±2 | 0.9 | 12 seconds Impact 2 at South Tower - UA flight 175
Time of impact|magnatude| Duration 09:02:54±2 | 0.7 | 6 seconds so, do you understand this? the seismic records show that there was an "impact" before the plane hit the tower. now your probably just thinking, 'well, those times are off by a few seconds, no big deal' but, the FAA followed the aircraft using Radar based upon microwaves that travel at the speed of light, there is not much room for error. Since the planes crashed at those times, the question is: What caused the seismic data say the times are 14 and 17 seconds earlier? (plus or minus two seconds ) http://www.insightful.com/infact/911/corpus/report_471_461.html - http://www.insightful.com/infact/911/corpus/report_471_461.html
We also reviewed a report regarding seismic observations on September 11, 2001, whose authors conclude that the impact time of United 93 was "10:06:05±5 (EDT)"
ok, i cant find the 911 Commissions time for impact on the Pentagon... so il take it from the time of the black box recorder. the last second of recoring was at 09:37:44. ( i took that from the video on the 'Pilots for truth' site, that was originaly release by NIST ) ok, now to compare them to the stations that gather the data...
... after about 45 minuts of looking for the seismic data, the best i can find is in this PDF file
http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/publications/download/911pentagon.pdf - http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/publications/download/911pentagon.pdf ( notice, this is goverment released ) all i can find for flight 93 is 'The seismic signal are relativly weak compared with background noise level.' and for the pentagon 'These waveform data indicate that we could not identify seismic signals associated with the plane impact into the pentagon on september 11,2001'
so, 2 airplanes hit the top of 2 towers and leave behind a 0.7 magnatude or greater earthquake impact, and two planes that hit on the ground level dont leave enough to be able to be accuretly identified?
now, this is my assumption, but shouldent the buildings have DAMPENED the impact? if the tower rocking back and foward from a plane impact would cause a seismic graf to register a 0.7 earthquake, wouldent wind set it off as well? ( to the lesser extent )
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html - http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html
here is the Data on the building collapse's First collapse - Soulth tower 9:59:04 | 2.1 | 10 Second collpase - North tower
10:28:31 | 2.3 | 8 Building 7
17:20:33 | 0.6 | 18 Quickly looking here, i see that building 7, made LESS of an earquake then EITHER of the impacts by the planes, how is that even possible?
and somehow, a 47 story building collapsing has a longer seismic activity then both the other towers put together. again, how is this possible?
... but its from a comfirmed source, so, you cant go against your official story right?
soucres
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/WTC_LDEO_KIM.pdf - http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/WTC_LDEO_KIM.pdf http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html - http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/publications/download/911pentagon.pdf - http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/publications/download/911pentagon.pdf and http://www.insightful.com/infact/911/corpus/report_470_460.html - http://www.insightful.com/infact/911/corpus/report_470_460.html http://www.insightful.com/infact/911/corpus/report_471_461.html - http://www.insightful.com/infact/911/corpus/report_471_461.html Preach, i just want to say, i appreciate you halting the insults.
|
Posted By: Bluescales
Date Posted: 26/August/2007 at 4:30pm
|
Originally posted by Preach
Afterwards, I have some ocean front property in Arizona for you to buy on the cheap! Now are you willing to sell to minors?
|