It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Crew welds 200 plates to Building for 3 months "almost unknown"

page: 8
46
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by gottago
Clearly, workers laying yet another layer of fibre-optics would be a common-place occurrence in the WTC complex, easily disguised to be indistinguishable from any other such legitimate work. Much of the work, in fact, could be done as a routine installation by workers none the wiser about its real purpose.

Here is your "real world" scenario for a critical aspect of planning destruction of the towers.


Don't forget the other aspect of it too. Who would think one more strand of fibre-optics would be suspicious in the rubble pile?

As I remember, that was a great thread.




posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Wait a minute. You just said it would be easy so you should be able to give example based on factual information


You aren't this stupid. I already told you I wasn't there, I haven't seen security videos, you know there is no way for me to know exactly what happened in those buildings. I could give you scenarios based on facts, sure, but no, you want PROOF of what exactly happened, because you want to be a jerk and ask for something totally unreasonable that you know I wouldn't know. How about you pay me a few hundred thousand dollars and give me access to enough evidence and I'll figure it out for you. How's that? Even criminal investigators, when hired, have to actually work to figure that stuff out, and the work is such that they even have to be trained as to how to do it.


You're making a claim that in actuality, it would be easy to rig the towers. I'm just asking you to back up that statement.


I have backed up that statement. But that isn't what you're asking. You're asking for the exact scenario that actually happened, while I have never claimed to know exactly what happened. Big difference. If it takes any more posts to explain this very simple idea to you, then I'm just going to put you on ignore, because there are too many people here who are more intelligent, for me to waste time trying to explain stupid things like this to you.



And of course you would be right. If you are an intelligent person, think about how I could possibly know who planted what and where. I couldn't.

Then you can't say, with any credibility, it would have been easy. Can you?


Uh, yes, because you can still go around in these buildings virtually unchecked if you have a permit? Have you not been reading all the other posts on this thread, or do you have selective vision?




So do you want a make-believe scenario, or do you want me to keep repeating that there is no possible way for me to know exactly who planted what and where?

or what was planted.
or how it was planted.
etc...


That doesn't at all answer my question.

You don't want a legitimate response from me. You're just trying to aggravate me by asking me for things that you know I would not be able to provide.


Anything is hypothetically possible. Maybe space aliens used their phaser beams and destroyed the buildings. That could have happened too.


Wow, you have an imagination. Try using it more intelligently and see what you can't come up with, Albert.


AGAIN, you may have not noticed but I run into nosey people almost every day


Maybe it's because you come across like a jerk and people get suspicious as to what you are doing in their building. I know I probably would. Just a thought, as no one else here seems to have your troubles getting around inside buildings.


Your blanket statement is incorrect.


Not according to most of the responses here, that just verify what I posted.

And of all the buildings it's easy to get around in with a permit or clearance, the WTC Towers should have been amongst the easiest, from the sheer number of people going in and out 24/7 and the whole NYC social mentality that exists because of how many people there are and how much you see on a daily basis. Again, with a permit, no one is even going to remember anything. All the records are gone now, etc. Supposing you don't actually understand what any of this means, I guess I'm posting it for someone else.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Science Channel Video re: Secret Retrofit of NY CitiBank Building (1977).






Thank you for posting this!


Notice the structural engineer they mention is Les Robertson. I guess when you're really in the skyscraper business, you don't have a hell of a lot of competition.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Though this is not directly related to 911, I think this is a good example of how willingly people accept seemingly legit "credentials": www.nytimes.com...

This guy convinced a whole town that he was with a federal agency for over 4 months. I would think it wouldn't be that hard to convince a whole building that you were there to do maintenance.

Take this with SPreston's post on page 4 then it seems to me that it's very possible for them to do it without someone noticing.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jfj123
You keep making a statement that people wouldn't notice and are not nosey.


No. YOU keep making the statement that we are saying that no one would notice and are not nosey. See how that works? YOU set up the strawman to be burnt down.

One of my favorite useless CT catch phrases:
Straw man.

You are making statements that people would not have noticed.
You are guessing based on your experience.
I'm stating that people would have noticed based on my experience.
Lets assume you're telling the truth as I am.
Then the best we can come up with is that people may or may not have noticed so it makes this entire conversation completely useless where the search of the truth is concerned.


What WE are saying is if this was a false flag.

2nd favorite CT'er catch phrase:
False Flag.


Someone high up would be giving out badges to the perps. Being badged in a building gives you leeway as far as nosey people.

So now the conspiracy is getting even bigger. Even more people would need to be involved. We need more conspiracies this large so we can eliminate the joblessness in America



Sure there would be nosey people asking what you are doing.

A simple "We are fixing the cable lines" would shut these people up.

Maybe. Maybe not. Although I can't tell you if it's true one way or the other in the case of the 3 WTC's, I can tell you, as the owner of the company, I field phone calls on a regular basis due to noseyness.


Or do you want us to believe that the nosey people who are bothering you all day long won't leave it at that and will continue to hound you all day long until you are out of their building?

There are a good percentage that call the management companies or want to actually look at what I'm doing or ask multiple times. So YES.


Please.

Well at least you asked nicely



You are insulting our intelligence and really insulting those of us who know better

No, if I'm insulting anything, it's definitely not your "intelligence".


Or is it that you have never been to a building where you need to be badged?

I have. Not all buildings require badges but some do and some even REQUIRE security escorts the ENTIRE time I'm there. I've had security personnel escort me around a building for hours while changing light bulbs for god sake!


Because once you've obtained that security badge, no one, and I'll repeat, no one will look at you twice.

Obviously you can categorically state this for absolutely every building everywhere



How hard is this to understand? Really?

Evidently for you, very hard



Your blanket statement is incorrect. Unless we too are part of the massive conspiracy? Maybe that's it ?!?! The conspiracy just keeps getting bigger and bigger
Before you know it, everyone but the truthers will need to be involved in the conspiracy for it to be legit


Ignorant people who allowed others to get away with it. Yes.

In on it. No.

How can someone allow something to happen and not know about it? If they do know about it, they're in on it.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by gottago
 


Thanks for the post.

Your type of post really helps a thread along as it doesn't use guesswork but show actual information.

Thanks again for posting the info




posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jfj123
Wait a minute. You just said it would be easy so you should be able to give example based on factual information


You aren't this stupid. I already told you I wasn't there, I haven't seen security videos, you know there is no way for me to know exactly what happened in those buildings.

That's not what I'm asking. You're the one that's saying it would be easy to know. For you to know it would have been easy, you certainly must have some knowledge on how buildings are rigged. You could explain in detail, based on your knowledge of demolitions how they COULD HAVE BEEN rigged using real world demolitions material/tools.


I could give you scenarios based on facts, sure, but no, you want PROOF of what exactly happened,

For the 3rd time, No I'm not asking for PROOF as to how it really happened.


because you want to be a jerk and ask for something totally unreasonable that you know I wouldn't know.

Well if you don't know how it could have been done based on real material/tools that COULD HAVE BEEN USED, then you don't know whether or not it would have been easy. Simple really



How about you pay me a few hundred thousand dollars and give me access to enough evidence and I'll figure it out for you. How's that? Even criminal investigators, when hired, have to actually work to figure that stuff out, and the work is such that they even have to be trained as to how to do it.

Again, I never asked you to do anything like this so stop pretending that I am.


You're making a claim that in actuality, it would be easy to rig the towers. I'm just asking you to back up that statement.



I have backed up that statement.

Where did you back up your statement?


But that isn't what you're asking. You're asking for the exact scenario that actually happened,

For the 5th time, NO I AM NOT. I'm telling you I am not asking you that and I'm sure I know what I'm asking you as I am the one asking you.


while I have never claimed to know exactly what happened. Big difference. If it takes any more posts to explain this very simple idea to you, then I'm just going to put you on ignore, because there are too many people here who are more intelligent, for me to waste time trying to explain stupid things like this to you.

Don't get mad at me because you got caught making claims you can't back up. That's your fault. Be an adult about it.

Let me make this perfectly clear one more (6th) time.

You said it would be easy to rig those buildings.
I wanted to know how you know it would be easy to rig those buildings.

For you to know that it would be easy to rig those buildings, you would need to have knowledge of demolitions. So based on your knowledge of demolitions, how COULD HAVE those buildings been rigged? Use real world material and tools to describe how the buildings COULD HAVE been rigged. Even if your hypothetical, based on real world knowledge is wrong, it would show that you have indeed backed up your statement.

Now to be even more clear, when I write COULD HAVE, I'm not expecting you to tell me what really happened in those three buildings.

OK, do you get it now?
You made a statement.
I asked you to back it up.
Either you will or by default, your statement must be false.

Put me on ignore if you want but that's just a way for you to hide from the responsibility of your statement.


AGAIN, you may have not noticed but I run into nosey people almost every day



Maybe it's because you come across like a jerk and people get suspicious as to what you are doing in their building.

Actually I started up my business 13 years ago and from day one, I've gotten all my work completely based on word of mouth. If I was a jerk to people, I would have been out of business in a week.
You're just mad because I'm calling you on your statement.


I know I probably would. Just a thought, as no one else here seems to have your troubles getting around inside buildings.

Actually not true. Several other people posted in this thread stating the same/similar things that I have.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
I have. Not all buildings require badges but some do and some even REQUIRE security escorts the ENTIRE time I'm there. I've had security personnel escort me around a building for hours while changing light bulbs for god sake!


I can attest to this as I've been to buildings too where this was the case. But, these were federal agency buildings. I.E. the three letter agencies. And those three letters were not WTC.


Obviously you can categorically state this for absolutely every building everywhere


Of course not. I've also had to be escorted in some of the buildings I've been in.

But, do you think those escorts would even know what I was doing if I was "installing fibre-optics" or something similar?

Hell, my escorts on Andrews Air Force Base would watch tv from a mobile tv the one kid just got. And this was 3 months after 9/11.

So, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. As our experiences obviously differ.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Originally posted by jfj123
I have. Not all buildings require badges but some do and some even REQUIRE security escorts the ENTIRE time I'm there. I've had security personnel escort me around a building for hours while changing light bulbs for god sake!



I can attest to this as I've been to buildings too where this was the case. But, these were federal agency buildings. I.E. the three letter agencies. And those three letters were not WTC.

Mainly the security escorts I had, were in medial buildings.



So, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. As our experiences obviously differ.

I can respect that


[edit on 3-2-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
You're the one that's saying it would be easy to know. For you to know it would have been easy, you certainly must have some knowledge on how buildings are rigged.


I said it would be easy to know what?

I said it would have been easy to bring things into the building without attracting much attention. In this thread, I am pointing out that you can smuggle things into a building pretty easily. That's what I am saying.

I don't claim to know what devices were used or in what configurations. But I think it would be common sense that configurations would have been established before they were brought in, whatever "they" were. All I'm saying, all this thread is about, is the fact that it isn't hard to bring things into buildings unnoticed, or even do work in buildings without attracting attention.


You could explain in detail, based on your knowledge of demolitions how they COULD HAVE BEEN rigged using real world demolitions material/tools.


Oh, ok. So then you must be able to explain in detail, how a nuclear bomb works, including the classified parts that most other militaries in the world still haven't figured out even theoretically. Right? You could do it. Do it. If you can't, apparently nuclear bombs can't exist. So obviously you can do it.


Well if you don't know how it could have been done based on real material/tools that COULD HAVE BEEN USED, then you don't know whether or not it would have been easy. Simple really


Again, you are misconstruing what I am really saying. Also simple.



For you to know that it would be easy to rig those buildings, you would need to have knowledge of demolitions.


I said it would be easy to bring things into the buildings. How the actual demolition is carried out is something else, and you keep wanting to refer to conventional ones and commercial, public technology, while I'm not so quick to do so.

Did you know that our own federal agencies confirmed that between 2 and 3 unexploded bombs (not explosives, but olive-drab, multi-gallon canisters) were removed from inside the Murrah Federal Building, site of the OKC bombing? Nobody caught whoever brought those into that building.


Actually I started up my business 13 years ago and from day one, I've gotten all my work completely based on word of mouth. If I was a jerk to people, I would have been out of business in a week.
You're just mad because I'm calling you on your statement.


I'm not skeptical because I'm "mad," I'm skeptical because everyone else that has similar anecdotes on this thread disagrees with you. In what part of the country is your business, if you don't mind me asking?



Actually not true. Several other people posted in this thread stating the same/similar things that I have.


Ok, I did a tally, and summarized what everybody in this thread has said so far.

The people confirming it would be easy/people are not that observant: 16 (or 18, depending how you figure it, 19 counting the anonymous post, and not counting me)

People disagreeing, saying it would be difficult/people are too observant: 5


And though I encourage you to go back over the thread and find your own conclusions, here are the actual anecdotes for you to read them, and try to notice a pattern:


In favor of the former (briefly, trying to avoid "excessive quoting"):


Originally posted by g raj
I worked in demolition from 2002 to 2007. [...] As long as you have a pair of dickies and a hard hat, you can walk around nearly anywhere practically unnoticed



Originally posted by MischeviousElf
My god when about 8 years ago...



Originally posted by Griff
I think the argument that it would be impossible is absurd.



Originally posted by toochaos4u
There was one problem in a building where I worked before. [...] A few people dressed in construction clothing slipped in amongst them and robbed the building blind because nobody paid attention to them wheeling objects out the back onto a pickup truck.



Originally posted by pipefitter
I work construction to. [...] I could install anything. The people they leave to watch us have no idea what they are even looking at.



Originally posted by Nola213
Like some white collar guy comeing back from coffee is gonna ask some burly guy in greased up coveralls, who's waist high in a drop cieling.. "Hey buddy, what are you doing in there.



Originally posted by C0bzz
However, had the modifcations been internal like on WTC, I have little doubt that it could of been carried out.



Originally posted by medicis
Most people do not notice what goes on around them and then, only the anomalies. Construction and maintenance workers don't a get second glance.



Originally posted by kix
I work in computers and networking. You would be surprised, how easy is t get anywhere while you are doing manteniance work. I mean everywhere



Originally posted by CuriosityStrikes
I have friends who like to take photos and explore private property and dressing like I have said works wonders. People just assume you were supposed to be there and so don't see it as important and don't really commit it to memory.



Originally posted by Amaterasu
The average office worker, upon seeing a "maintenance person," would have at best only a vague recollection of said individual a few days later, and virtually all of them dismiss the sighting immediately with no recollection whatsoever.



Originally posted by Terra Serranum
I've worked in large buildings most of my adult life [...] With service elevators construction crews can come and go throughout the buildings without getting noticed.



Originally posted by LaBTop
Just realize yourself that every sky scraper has miles of IT cabling layed all over the place. And the questions asked by some clean-up workers, why there were just such small pieces of debris left, the biggest one about half of a telephone dialing pad.



Originally posted by SPreston
If tenants asked you what the contractors were doing, you could just tell them simple maintenance.



Originally posted by mike dangerously
Here's a scenario: During the course of a few weeks a black-ops unit infiltrated the [WTC]'s posing as construction crews



Originally posted by gottago
Much of the work, in fact, could be done as a routine installation by workers none the wiser about its real purpose.


And then these two are a little different:


Originally posted by alienj
unknown to the public, but not the owners of the building



Originally posted by esdad71
It is very true that the American people do not take so much as a cursory glance when something does not concern them.


Because they admit that people are largely unobservant but suggest the contractors or even the PA security would prevent this from happening. But the contracting out could also be corrupted, and from any number of the tenants. Hell, the CIA could rent out tenant space to a completely false company themselves and then contract out for maintenance as a pretense to bring in devices.


In favor of the latter, saying people are observant and would figure things out:


Originally posted by optyk phyba
many of us are very observant as to what is happening and going on around us.
nothing happens where i work without me knowing or talking to the people involved



Originally posted by fleabit
I don't think that rigging the tallest building in our country would go unnoticed.



Originally posted by Chadwickus
Not sure how workers would have not noticed people setting the buildings up for demolition.


And then of course, yourself, and apparently CameronFox/ThroatYogurt (I have him on ignore).

Like I said, I tried to avoid "excessive quoting" by using only relevant bits of info.

Those anecdotes pretty much sum up the relevant input to the OP from the last 8 pages.

[edit on 3-2-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
And oh yeah, would these be the hush-a-boom explosives again?


This seems to be your signature tune. If you're still denying (in how many threads already?) that there isn't copious evidence of multiple loud explosions both before and synchronous with the collapses you are simply proclaiming your contempt for facts. You may as well state the buildings never fell.


Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by bsbray11
So a building was built, completed and occupied and it had fatal structural flaws...hmmm.

I wonder if the WTC's had a similar problem which brought them down after the plane impacts and fires????


If it wasn't for the way the buildings imploded and all the other evidence of controlled demolition that might be a hypothesis worth considering. It would raise very worrying questions all of its own - why did NIST's long and expensive investigation fail to identify such a major structural problem? If the same problem caused the total collapse of WTC7 (built to a different design by different architects) there must be many thousands of skyscrapers in America and beyond on the verge of imploding.


Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by sueloujo
reply to post by treemanx
The WTC 1 and 2 were designed specifically to withstand the largest fully laden Boeing aircraft around at the time of design and the architects actually state that each building could probably withstand 2 or 3 aircraft going into them.

I haven't seen anything regarding 2 or 3 but keep in mind that according to the architects, the buildings could withstand a plane impact. Anyone in the construction industry will tell you there's a huge difference between what the architect says and what actually get's built.


“I believe 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 the screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.": Frank De Martini, construction manager on the towers said this, not before, but long after construction (in Jan 2001).


Originally posted by jfj123
Here is a direct quote from the NIST

To respond to a number of the questions raised, NIST has posted a fact sheet on the investigation Web site (wtc.nist.gov...). The fact sheet explains how NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to 9/11


2. "Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do?": The second question that James Quintiere, Ph.D, Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division raised when he called for an Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation in 2007.


Originally posted by jfj123
I'm a person who looks at facts. I haven't seen any to this point to suggest there was anything more then massive amounts of incompetence within the walls of our government which allowed 19 terrorists to strike on Sept 11, 2001 causing massive amounts of damage.


I suppose you attribute the fact that the key people responsible for the "massive amounts of incompetence" were not sacked or censured, but in many cases promoted, to further massive incompetence?

Singular to this case is the number of people directly involved who challenge the official story, from firemen, first responders, survivors, family members of those who died, right to the janitor in charge of the buildings - people who are so passionately dissatisfied with what we have been told they devote their lives to encouraging others to wake up.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Actually I started up my business 13 years ago and from day one, I've gotten all my work completely based on word of mouth. If I was a jerk to people, I would have been out of business in a week.
You're just mad because I'm calling you on your statement.



I'm not skeptical because I'm "mad," I'm skeptical because everyone else that has similar anecdotes on this thread disagrees with you. In what part of the country is your business, if you don't mind me asking?

Again, not everyone in this thread has stated that. Several people have posted the same or similar experiences to myself.
My business is in lower michigan.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Again, not everyone in this thread has stated that.


You'd think I might be pretty aware of that given my previous post on this thread, wouldn't you say?


My business is in lower michigan.


Would you say the area is urban, suburban, rural, or what? What size buildings are we talking and what kinds of companies? Mom-and-pop stuff? You have to give me more to go on.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Thank you jfj for your response, and thank you griff as well. The fibre optic patent I posted is virtually unknown--but very real--and shows just how easy it is to subvert the commonplace to nefarious ends, which is the point of bsbray's posting about the retrofit of Citicorp tower here.

Both underscore how easy it is to deceive, if that is your end. And having read through the thread attentively, numerous posts by those dealing with building security (or the lack thereof) only reinforce this point.

jfj, going beyond the words of thanks, which are truly appreciated as we've often been at odds on this board, I do want to stress that this information shows only the tip of the proverbial iceberg of what is possible if you have the means and the funding and the professionalism necessary to plan such an operation.

This is just a crumb that fell off the table. The rhetorical "How could they have actually done it?...Prove it" is in fact actually quite easy to answer, and it has been provided in this thread. Take the sum of the wisdom of human fallibility and inattention (and the massive scale--and thus divided and easily compromised security of the WTC) documented in many posts here on one hand, combine it with the "crumb" I discovered, and you have an entirely plausible--even elegant--answer to the mechanics of wiring the towers unobtrusively.

It is quite obvious that this could have been done by workers who thought they were just laying another set of cables, oblivious to their actual intended use. Innocents, just doing their jobs. All signed off, no balking, no questions. All "legit." And as griff noted, no detcord in the rubble pile, either.

Simple, elegant, and evil.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


im not talking about supervisors at all.
im talking about regular normal people who are inquisative and alert that work in the building. if i see a work van or crew in the area (the network extends outside of the building) i will go and talk to them and find out what they are doing and where and if need be inspect what they are doing. i will also talk to them every day that they are around.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by jfj123
Again, not everyone in this thread has stated that.



You'd think I might be pretty aware of that given my previous post on this thread, wouldn't you say?

Obviously not.


My business is in lower michigan.



Would you say the area is urban, suburban, rural, or what? What size buildings are we talking and what kinds of companies? Mom-and-pop stuff? You have to give me more to go on.


Does it really matter?
Detroit metro area.
Anywhere from single story office buildings up. Some of the largest buildings in MI.
Private offices, medical buildings, R&D firms for the automakers, etc...
I'm not going to give you names of specific businesses so don't ask.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvilAxis

and synchronous with the collapses



Really? This is great!

So both collapses were caught on multiple videos, and according to you, there were 130-140dB explosions directly preceeding - meaning within moments - the collapse initiations.

Can you link me to one of these videos then?

No? Then you are simply proclaiming that you lie.

Put up or shut up....



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by gottago
reply to post by jfj123
 


This is just a crumb that fell off the table. The rhetorical "How could they have actually done it?...Prove it" is in fact actually quite easy to answer,

I don't think you're giving yourself enough credit, as you're the only one to answer the question with anything more then guesses of how it could have been done.
Thanks for stepping up and answering the questions with good solid info.

For the record, I don't care where the truth takes me. I just want the truth. If, as it turns out, it was an inside job, then it is what it is and those people need to answer for their crimes.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by optyk phyba
im not talking about supervisors at all.


You misread my post; I was not referring to you.

Now you were telling me you are how attentive?



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   
This is an interesting post.

If you're wearing coveralls and a hard hat people don't think there is anything suspicious.

I tend to agree with this.

However, people would have noticed the workmen during this time period. Afterwords, there would be numerous accounts of the "workers" in their areas.

So, I'm still not buying this. It is possible but I think that there would be many more witnesses reporting the unknown workers.

That's just my opinion.




top topics



 
46
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join