CNN may have lied about WTC Building 7

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Yes.

It's well known that the strength of steel decreases significantly when it is heated.

It got very very hot for a significant length of time.

Why do buildings go "straight down" when demolished by expert explosives? Because of gravity. The collapse is not because of explosives, but because of gravity.

And when the internal support columns are all evenly heated past their load limits, as would happen in a huge, intense fire, the same thing would happen. Remember, there is also "dynamic" loading, as in when one part collapses the weight hits the other part, which now collapses from the instantaneous shock because it also is barely at its load limit thanks to the fire.

People seem to think that they would "fall over" in one direction or another naturally.

Why? They go straight down because there's no reason to go any other direction.

Special effects in movies are designed to look cool, not be scientifically accurate.

They were built so that the forces are 'straight down' so that they could stay up. They weigh about the same everywhere in their cross section. They're very heavy and from a long way away you can't see any random side to side fluctuation during the collapse.

It's just physics.

If large buildings caught on fire so violently we'd see it happening more often, but fortunately it doesn't.

Silverstein was a commercial investor who wanted to make money on his buildings with rents. There's no way the collapse and insurance payoffs on this is anywhere near as profitable as if it had continued as a commercial concern. He'd be getting rents for four years on now, and he'd still have the building.




posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
"Wasn't this thread closed?
Should have stayed that way.
I know this was addressed. But just to reiterate, the buildings were tested for much smaller airplanes crashing into them. And those test did not include damage done as a result of the fires from the crash."


"Minimal structural damage? Are you kidding?
The structural damage was more responsible for the collapse than the fires. Take a knife and slice it through a house/tower of cards and see what happens."

"You all make think only the US government is out to kill you but I'm sorry to say, there really are terrorists out there whether you want to believe that or not. "

"Want to blame the government? Go ahead. We shouldn't have had such a nonchalont, "nah, they'd never do that" attitude. But trying to create conspiricies where there is none? Come on..."


Want to blame the government? Go ahead. Well, they ARE to blame, you understand? Hell, its still your attitude, the Powers that Be would never scapegoat another religion and tell us most of them are fundaMENTALs "nah, they'd never do that", is your response.

And yeah, perfect example. Any one ever take a knife to a house of cards? Bet it collapsed when those super light cards fell on top of the other cards, even though you thought they were too light to do any damage? Well, one MAJOR assumption missing here, who ever BUILT A BUILDING like a house of cards? With a little glue or tape, a house of cards would be find, so its not really the 'be-all, end-all' in examples.

A Bomber flew in the Empire State Building at the end of WWII. To make that clear, the tallest building in the World at the time was crashed into by a plane carrying enough fuel to cross the Atlantic. Yet only three floors burned, and the building did not come close to collapsing... I guess they were using regular gasoline, or something?

Terrorists are willingly or unwittingly working for intelligence agencies, terrorist activity is 'bought'.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by akilles
Want to blame the government? Go ahead. Well, they ARE to blame, you understand? Hell, its still your attitude, the Powers that Be would never scapegoat another religion and tell us most of them are fundaMENTALs "nah, they'd never do that", is your response.



I think you're saying my attitude is that the government would never scapegoat muslims, blah blah blah.
How did you come to that conclusion?
Just because I think terrorists were responsible for 9/11, I believe evverything the gov tells me? Get real. What a bunch of nonsense. I never even hinted at that.
You people who have never left the comforts of whatever western country you're in, and completely ignorant of people with totally different mindsets and people who are willing to do anything to kill westerners like you, make me laugh.
You got any proof of the gov scapegoating muslims btw? Or saying they're all fundamentals? That's a heavy claim, so I'm sure you could provide plenty of credible evidence and proof that's what the US is doing.


And yeah, perfect example. Any one ever take a knife to a house of cards? Bet it collapsed when those super light cards fell on top of the other cards, even though you thought they were too light to do any damage? Well, one MAJOR assumption missing here, who ever BUILT A BUILDING like a house of cards? With a little glue or tape, a house of cards would be find, so its not really the 'be-all, end-all' in examples.

The principle still stands.
If you take away a card from near the top, what happens? The remaining top part falls causing the bottom cards to fall.
With the towers, the same domino effect took place. The collapse that happened with the towers would not have been possible with explosives.


A Bomber flew in the Empire State Building at the end of WWII. To make that clear, the tallest building in the World at the time was crashed into by a plane carrying enough fuel to cross the Atlantic. Yet only three floors burned, and the building did not come close to collapsing... I guess they were using regular gasoline, or something?

Have you not read through this thread?


Terrorists are willingly or unwittingly working for intelligence agencies, terrorist activity is 'bought'.

I'm the King of Russia.

Because I said that does it make it true?
No. I must provide proof of my claim.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 03:23 PM
link   
The WTC 7 detonation is one of the most, if not th emost damning evidence for something fishing going on. Between that, the Pakistani General-Muhammade Atta-George Tenet thing, and a bunch of other fact based anomolies...something, something odd was going on.

There are several camps of people who explain two different positive govenment thoughts on WTC 7.

Those who say, yes, WTC 7 was brought down by detonation...but that they did it for safety reasons, and that because of the sensitive nature of who was there that it was rigged ready to be brought down in case of an emergency someday. Then those who say somehow those small fires brought the WTC 7 down.

But the truth is the officials cant get there stories straight. Does this mean, since WTC 7 has pretty much been proven to be the work of demolition, as well as possibly before 9/11 that WTC1&2 were too?

Even Osama on a video tape says to his cohorts about how we was shocked the WTC 1&2 collapsed. Firemen reportedly heard bombs go off. Heck watch the march 2002 9/11 documentary on CBS and see for yourself. The thoery of a missle, the pentagon phantom plane, and all that nonsense doesnt make sense, but WTC 7 I think is the smoking buildin gof something not right.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel

Yes.

It's well known that the strength of steel decreases significantly when it is heated.

It got very very hot for a significant length of time.

Why do buildings go "straight down" when demolished by expert explosives? Because of gravity. The collapse is not because of explosives, but because of gravity.

And when the internal support columns are all evenly heated past their load limits, as would happen in a huge, intense fire, the same thing would happen. Remember, there is also "dynamic" loading, as in when one part collapses the weight hits the other part, which now collapses from the instantaneous shock because it also is barely at its load limit thanks to the fire.

People seem to think that they would "fall over" in one direction or another naturally.

Why? They go straight down because there's no reason to go any other direction.

Special effects in movies are designed to look cool, not be scientifically accurate.

They were built so that the forces are 'straight down' so that they could stay up. They weigh about the same everywhere in their cross section. They're very heavy and from a long way away you can't see any random side to side fluctuation during the collapse.

It's just physics.

If large buildings caught on fire so violently we'd see it happening more often, but fortunately it doesn't.

Silverstein was a commercial investor who wanted to make money on his buildings with rents. There's no way the collapse and insurance payoffs on this is anywhere near as profitable as if it had continued as a commercial concern. He'd be getting rents for four years on now, and he'd still have the building.


Did you read the last posts??

How did WTC7 just fall down with NO debris or plane....???

How did a fire get started and why didn't the CIA HQ have a better sprinkler system.....?????

Silverstein had a motive, well I don't know what it is but one thing I do know is war is probly the 100% best way to make money......If I was looking for a motive well I would look at who benefited well I guess there are 3 motives:

Politicians: Take away freedoms slowly making steps to martial law and help to get rid of some depleted uranium in another country.

Bankers: Very good chance to loan money for contracts to rebuild Iraq. And Loan money to governments in order to pay for weapons.

Also not forgetting the many, many corporations that benefit....



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Just because I think terrorists were responsible for 9/11, I believe evverything the gov tells me? Get real.


I've seen quite a few of your posts in various topics, you've never said one bad thing about the Government in any of them. So why do you come on ATS? to defend the Government? it sure seems that way unless you saw a UFO or something. But what are you going to say when you're wrong? Probably nothing, you'll just slowly slide over to the side of the true patriots of this country and pretend you were there all along. I would recommend when they ask you if you want the verichip in your forehead to say no, but then again you do whatever you feel like.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 06:23 PM
link   
There is no way that I can see for WTC 7 to be in the middile of this collapse and NOT take damage from it.
media.popularmechanics.com...

Here's damage to the side of the building. I have no idea what the page it's posted on says, but here's the pic.
www.kolumbus.fi...

I just saw my first picture of the "pod" that the planes were "carrying" when they hit the WTC, it's called a "wheel well". If you ever look at a plane that's flying with the landing gear retracted, they ALL have that shape under the wings. Well ok, not ALL. Some have the gear out under the wings, but any plane like that 767 that has the gear under the fuselage, has that shape under it.


[edit on 22-6-2005 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
There is no way that I can see for WTC 7 to be in the middile of this collapse and NOT take damage from it.
media.popularmechanics.com...

Here's damage to the side of the building. I have no idea what the page it's posted on says, but here's the pic.
www.kolumbus.fi...

I just saw my first picture of the "pod" that the planes were "carrying" when they hit the WTC, it's called a "wheel well". If you ever look at a plane that's flying with the landing gear retracted, they ALL have that shape under the wings. Well ok, not ALL. Some have the gear out under the wings, but any plane like that 767 that has the gear under the fuselage, has that shape under it.


[edit on 22-6-2005 by Zaphod58]


Interesting post. If it can be proven that detonations were already under WTC 7 as just a precationary measure, or that there really was extensive damage structurally to WTC 7, it would hurt some of the 9/11 conspiracy.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 09:13 PM
link   
(sigh) one more time.


This is what the firemen who were on site that day have to say about WTC 7.



Firehouse: Other people tell me that there were a lot of firefighters in the street who were visible, and they put out traffic cones to mark them off?

Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse:Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

www.firehouse.com...

- - -


Boyle: A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

Firehouse:When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse:When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

We ended up getting back to the command post at Broadway and Vesey. By that time, there were probably 50 officers standing in a row. And I was like, I’m not going to stand on another line like that. So we came down with Fox. I knew Fox was somewhere. So we found out that Fox was over at Cortlandt and Church. They were putting a tower ladder into operation, so we made our way over to there. We ended up helping.

They had no pressure at all off of any of the hydrants from Broadway. He was asking if there was any way that we could do anything at Broadway or West. From Broadway to West westward toward Church Street there was no pressure at all. We spotted one of the squads up on Cortlandt over by Broadway and he was hooked up to a hydrant, and it was running. There was nobody there. I don’t know which squad it was, but you know they were in there. We were just sitting there, so we stretched the line off of him. We relayed it to 274, who relayed it to another engine down the street and eventually we got more pressure. I think it was 22 Truck on Church and Cortlandt and they were operating to number 5.

We did that for a little while. It took a while to get the hose there because there was a White Plains company helping us and they had some different fittings. So we got water to 22, but then that’s when they said all right, number 7 is coming down, shut everything down. I don’t know what time that was. It was all just a blur.

Firehouse: Did they shut the tower lines and remove them from there?

Boyle: No, just left them. Everything was left where it was. Just shut everything down, moved everybody back.

Firehouse: Could you see building 7 again from there?

Boyle: Seven, no. You got a half block away, you couldn’t see it, couldn’t see a damn thing. All we heard was they were worried about it coming down, everybody back away. We ran into the people running around for water for the eyes because everybody’s eyes were burned and I don’t know who they were. I think it was the doctor and some other people. They were just running around, washing people’s eyes out.

We were there about an hour or so until number 7 came down and everything was black again.

www.firehouse.com...



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 09:28 PM
link   
what the hell!? I just posted a long reply and hit review the topic at the bottom and instead of popping up a new window it just switched and erased my entire response!!!



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 09:31 PM
link   
How did this fire start?

Is it the fault of terrorists? What was it claimed under, for insurance?

And then, lastly, unfortunately for you 'ABitWeird', I have not lived an isolated life in any western country.

And yet, I have never seen the masses of people who were so bloodthirsty they would kill any white person, even one who HAD NEVER WRONGED THEM.

Hmmm.... The Arabs I have met in my life have been the most intelligent and nice people bar none. Atleast as nice as any native Canadians, moreso than most American I have ever met in a foreign country (who have all been the same, tourist types).

However, here the belief is STILL that the only people crazy enough to suicide bomb something is an Arab on Jihad against random white people.

People need to come to terms with how a hypnotized, drugged, brainwashed, and then mind-controlled person could be best utilized. And thats just an example.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 09:33 PM
link   
ThatsJustWierd: You're entire post was full of flaws. You claimed there was no evidence of explosions. Did you watch the news that day. EVERY CHANNEL reported explosions before the collapse. One even described it as "a secondary device". You also said that there was no proof of what silverstien said, well that's already been disproven. You even said there are hardly any buildings that catch fire or there would be more collapses. You couldn't be further from the truth.






The Windsor building in madrid, spain burned for nearly 2 days. That is MUCH more damaged than building 7. and look! No collapse! The structure remained intact.

I had a lot more, but honestly I don't feel like retyping my entire post because of garbage like that.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 09:35 PM
link   
It's hard to NOT believe that MOST of the people in the world that will blow themselves up to kill a few white people are arabs, when you see it happening in Israel all the time, and a large portion of the terrorist attacks have been done by arabs. I realize that there are white terrorists out there, but the majority of terrorist attacks against the US have been carried out by arabs, hence the belief.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 09:49 PM
link   
So because some other steel buildings can burn and not collapse, that means that NO steel building can collapse because of fire? There hasn't been a fire caused by jet fuel in a steel building before that I'm aware of. Most fires don't burn at the same temperature that jet fuel burns at. Doing research for this thread seems to show that a "normal" fire burns at about 8-900 degrees, where jet fuel burns at between 1200 and 3000 degrees at the upper end. at 800 degrees steel can withstand a fire for a long time. At 1500 degrees steel loses half of it's tensile strength, and at higher temps it loses more strength. If the fuel gets perfect conditions and reaches 3000 degrees the steel will melt. If it burns at 2000 degrees steel has approximately 10% of its normal strength. Under those conditions, such as found in WTC 1 and 2 a steel building WILL collapse from a fire. Just because something hasn't happened before doesn't mean that it WON'T or CAN'T happen.

When you have a plane crash, with a large fire like this you will have secondary explosions. Not everything in a plane that can explode does in a crash always, unless it's a nose dive or into a mountain and everything goes up at once. There were puddles of fuel on other floors, as the fire reached them they could sound like explosions in some cases. There could have been offices that went up with a bang.... There were things in the building that could have sounded like explosives, without BEING explosives.

I know this thread is about WTC7, but this is mainly for the people that insist that a steel building can't come down from fire, just because it hasn't happened yet.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
ThatsJustWierd: You're entire post was full of flaws. You claimed there was no evidence of explosions. Did you watch the news that day. EVERY CHANNEL reported explosions before the collapse.

I've watched it over and over and over. There were no explosions. I encourage you to watch it again. If there were explosions, the building would NOT have collapsed the way it did.



You also said that there was no proof of what silverstien said, well that's already been disproven.

I didn't say there was no proof, I asked for audio. And if you read my post you'll see where I posted what he claimed he said.


You even said there are hardly any buildings that catch fire or there would be more collapses. You couldn't be further from the truth.

I said nothing close to that, where did you get that from??




The Windsor building in madrid, spain burned for nearly 2 days. That is MUCH more damaged than building 7. and look! No collapse! The structure remained intact.

This has been discussed extensively in other threads. Please go over them.


[edit on 22-6-2005 by ThatsJustWeird]



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 10:25 PM
link   
-SIGH-

It amazes me, how many people who don't have any common sense and/or can't think for themselves and just believe anything that's spoon fed to them.

Anyone who thinks that a building is automatically going to come down perfectly like a house of cards, in it's own foot print, just because of a fire is a moron.. bottom line.

Mbkennel? When you said this:

"People seem to think that they would "fall over" in one direction or another naturally.

Why? They go straight down because there's no reason to go any other direction.

Special effects in movies are designed to look cool, not be scientifically accurate. "

I almost laughed myself out of my chair.


Here's some tough questions for you "experts"

In buildings to be destroyed -intentionally- WHY on earth do demolition experts set explosives up VERY specifically and time them just right? (i'm talking about high rise buildings here)

WHY didn't ALL of the federal Murah building in Oklahoma come down all at once instead of just part of it after it was bombed?

WHAT do you think would happen if you took a building like WTC7 and just knocked out half of the support collumns on one side?

WHY was there no REAL indication of any fire/damage across ALL of ANY floor of WTC7? There were no major fires in WTC7, and none of them burned across any floor in it's entirety. I mean come on.. -anyone- with any common sense would understand after looking at that building collapse that there would have to be -consistant- damage across an entire floor AT THE BOTTOM for it to even possibly fall the way it did without explosives.


I don't mean to insult anyone and I swear I'm the world's BIGGEST skeptic but you just can't sit there and tell me building 7 fell without "help" If you believe that you are sheep heading to the fire and I'm not going to join you.




Buildings 1 and 2? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.. WTC 7 .. NO way dude...


[edit on 22-6-2005 by TxSecret]



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 11:43 PM
link   


I've watched it over and over and over. There were no explosions. I encourage you to watch it again. If there were explosions, the building would NOT have collapsed the way it did.


Again you fail to make sense. It was reported on several news channels at the time of the attacks. Since then there hasn't been a word about it. Obviously you haven't watched it, or you've seen selective chunks from certain ones. There is no disputing this. If i had webspace to post a video I would show you the many times explosions were reported.



When you have a plane crash, with a large fire like this you will have secondary explosions. Not everything in a plane that can explode does in a crash always, unless it's a nose dive or into a mountain and everything goes up at once. There were puddles of fuel on other floors, as the fire reached them they could sound like explosions in some cases. There could have been offices that went up with a bang.... There were things in the building that could have sounded like explosives, without BEING explosives.


What are you basing this on? A plane loaded with jet fuel hits a solid building. I'm sorry, but there's no doubt in my mind the whole thing's blowing up at once. Especially if it hit the steel/concrete columns. I'm sure there were random puddles of fuel that happened to escape the initial explosion. That's just not plausible in this situation. Jet Fuel is highly combustible and does burn hot, but it also burns out fast. Nothing in an office would blow up loudly enough for people all the way on the ground to hear it and be "shaken" by it. They even stated the fires were pretty much contained right before the explosions and the building collapsing.

Read this
Scientifically broken down how jet fuel alone can NOT cause the collapse.


[edit on 22-6-2005 by Barcs]



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 12:01 AM
link   
Someone please tell us how!
There are thousand of threads discussing building 7, but not one has said how it fell.
All people say was that it was demolished. HOW!?

Building 7 was inaccesable.
Building 7 was heavily damaged on the south side.
Building 7 was on fire.
We know all that. So tell me how was a demolition crew able to come out of no where and do in hours - in a damaged buring building that they couldn't reach - what would usually take weeks?

That's all I want to know.

***

Someone please tell us what!
What's the conspiricy?
Building 7 was going to have to come down anyway. Let's say a demo crew did magically appear and bring down the building. How does that prove conspiricy?
Holy explosives batman! Someone just "pulled" a condemned building! Something sinister must be afloat!
"but, but...they're covering up blah blah blah"
There's no proof anyone's covering up anything. If it's somehow proven that the building was brought down by explosives, there's no reason not to come out and say it. The building was going to come down anyway and no one died or anything. As it stands now, there's no proof at all.
"but, but...it fell so perfectly blah blah blah"

With it's size, shape (big role), weight, and with the extent of the damage, how else was the building going to fall?
It'd be a lot of help too to see the videos again of it falling (not that gif). Certainly not perfect, and definately not characteristic of a controlled demo.



Hey, if I'm wrong on all this...I'm wrong. I have no problem with being wrong. If the big bad government is going around demolishing damaged buildings then I guess we should all be scared. But please provide credible proof, not the freakin' opinions of a bunch of nonexperts with a preset anti-government mindset.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 12:32 AM
link   
The plane broke up, but it didn't disintigrate like if it had nose dived into the ground or a mountain. The plane that hit the Pentagon left quite a bit of debris in the building and that was a MUCH stronger building than the WTC was. The steel pillars would have kept any large portions of plane from staying together, but wouldn't have caused a total disintigration, as there were gaps for the plane to break apart into. If it was solid then the plane would probably have totally disintigrated. There were PARTS that disintigrated, but more than likely not the entire plane. There probably weren't any large parts left, but I'm willing to bet that there WERE parts left after the initial impact.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 04:22 AM
link   
You guys really must be joking, with your:
1) "Fire collapsed a steel building perfectly"
2) Only Muslims explode bombs, and they like to do so in a suicide style attack, although the only proof I have are the news stories over the years
rhetoric.

Imagine it for a second, either you don't need a suicide bomber, and just say there was one, or you have two options:
1) Drug, hypnotize, and mind control the guy to walk out into the street. Not very difficult, if you have had a few weeks with a person. Then press the remote detonator.

2) Convince someone to die for their religion. Actually, this one is actually much harder. We are told that killing innocent civilians is somehow a gift to Allah? I am not sure you will find many Muslims agreeing with that statement.

Plus, what if the guy asks if he can throw the bomb instead? What are you going to tell him? No, you'll go to jail. Better to die in the explosion as well.

The whole suicide bomber thing is way way overdone.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join