Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Study claims 'highly engineered explosive' found in WTC rubbl

page: 37
218
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 22 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by mosesgunner
 


It's interesting you say that because the NRO HQ at Langley was evacuated that morning before it all happened during a drill simulating a plane flying into their building. After they got the news of the terrorist attack news reports said they let all their employees go home.

What other "information" would suggest that's where it's target was?

[edit on 22-5-2009 by bsbray11]




posted on May, 22 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by vehemes terra eternus
I have a final question for both truthers and skeptics.

What piece of evidence (for OS or against) really stands out in your opinion???

Right here:



Kinda hard to explain all the WTC explosions that were heard BEFORE and after the jets impacted.

Also kinda hard to explain how a half dozen "hijackers" are still alive.

Not to mention it's very hard to explain how all the insider trading (put options on UA, AA, etc.) led directly to Deutschebank, A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard and the CIA.

Anyone who does a modicum of research into the hundreds of crazy 9/11 anomalies will quickly conclude it was an inside job.

Bush (Cheney) and their evil cabal of neocons lied about EVERYTHING. Why would anyone give them the benefit of the doubt on 9/11?



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by finemanm
Muslims did commit the acts of terror and murder on 9/11. That’s just a fact. If the Israeli government had intelligence that Bush ignored, it doesn't make the Jews complicit in 9/11.

The FBI had intelligence about 9/11 that the Bush Administration ignored.

You must be referring to the five "dancing Muslims" who were arrested on 9/11 driving a van packed with "tons of explosives" and held for months in an FBI dungeon on charges of conspiring to blow up the George Washington bridge.


Sorry, couldn't help it... Hard to believe there are still people who believe the official story.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Also kinda hard to explain how a half dozen "hijackers" are still alive.



I am not arguing with you but this is one of the statements that I have seen so many times but I have never seen it proven. Can anyone provide me with a link or something to the proof that any of the hijackers are still alive. I would not be at all surprised if they all were but I would like to see the proof. Thanks!



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by evil incarnate
 

Sure, no problem. Here's a BBC article: (amazing how the US corporate media ignores these troubling details.)


Hijack 'suspects' alive and well
BBC News
Sunday, 23 September, 2001, 12:30 GMT 13:30 UK

A man called Waleed Al Shehri says he left the US a year ago

Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well.

The identities of four of the 19 suspects accused of having carried out the attacks are now in doubt.

Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September.

His photograph was released, and has since appeared in newspapers and on television around the world.

Now he is protesting his innocence from Casablanca, Morocco.

He told journalists there that he had nothing to do with the attacks on New York and Washington, and had been in Morocco when they happened. He has contacted both the Saudi and American authorities, according to Saudi press reports.

He acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Daytona Beach in the United States, and is indeed the same Waleed Al Shehri to whom the FBI has been referring.

But, he says, he left the United States in September last year, became a pilot with Saudi Arabian airlines and is currently on a further training course in Morocco...


What Really Happened says seven "hijackers" are still alive.



[edit on 2-6-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Here's a BBC article: (amazing how the US corporate media ignores these troubling details.)


Hijack 'suspects' alive and well
BBC News
Sunday, 23 September, 2001, 12:30 GMT 13:30 UK





I still check in on this thread out of morbid curiosity. Not unexpectedly we have a report made 12 days after 9/11 that was corrected at source.

Keep swapping stories with each other by the campfire. Lots of websites and Youtube to trawl through.





www.debunk911myths.org...

Hijackers still alive?

This claim is based on a report by the BBC on September 23, 2001. The BBC has since reported about the 19 hijackers, and has issued corrections to this story.

In the aftermath of the attacks, there was confusion about names on the list issued by the FBI, as well as lists obtained by the Boston Globe and other media outlets.

Waleed al-Shehri

There was confusion regarding one name on the list -- Waleed Alshehri. In a case of mistaken identity, a different Waleed Alshehri (other than the real hijacker) was initially identified. This Waleed Alshehri came to Daytona Beach, Florida in 1996, took aviation lessons at Embry-Riddle Aeronautics University, and was employed as a pilot for Saudi Arabian Airlines. He was living in Morocco at the time of the 9/11 attacks.

Abdul al-Omari

There was also confusion regarding Abdul al-Omari. Someone with a similar name in south Florida, Abdulrahman S. Alomari, took flight lessons at Flight Safety International. He was identified early and confused with the hijacker. Abdulaziz Alomari, a 28-year old in Riyadh, said his passport was stolen while he lived in Denver in 1995, and thought his identity was stolen by one of the hijackers.

Saeed al-Ghamdi

Said Hussein al-Ghamdi, a Saudi pilot living in Tunis, was also mistaken, with CNN broadcasting his picture instead of that of Flight 93 hijacker, Saeed al-Ghamdi.

Marwan al-Shehhi

The list obtained by the Boston Globe on September 12 included the name Marwan Alshehri. (name really is Marwan al-Shehhi)

Khalid al-Mihdhar

In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, some news reports showed a picture of Khalid Al-Mihammadi, a computer programmer from Mecca, in place of Khalid al-Mihdhar's picture. Mihammadi had been in the United States to study English in Florida, and in Indiana. One story, published by the BBC on September 23, indicated that Mihdhar was possibly still alive. In 2006, in response to 9/11 conspiracy theories surrounding its original news story, the BBC claimed that confusion arose with the common Arabic names, and that its later reports on the hijackers superseded its original story.

Why the confusion?

* One source of confusion is the fact that hijackers often varied the spelling of their names when renting rooms, banking, and other activities. For example, Hani Hanjour, whose full name is "Hani Saleh Hanjour", also used "Hani Hanjoor", "Hani Saleh", "Hany Saleh", and "Hami Hanjoor".
* Also, some of the names, particularly "al-Ghamdi" and "al-Shehri" are extremely common names in Saudi Arabia, as Smith is common in the United States.

“ In the rush to reveal information, these were published without due authentication. According to a US source, the FBI committed some errors in its inquiries at the beginning of the investigation. First, it asked about pilots or trainees at airlines whose names resembled those of the hijackers. This was on the presumption that the hijackers should be pilots or experts in aviation. This led to the confusion about the names of pilots Saeed Al-Ghamdi who turned up in Tunis, Abdul Rahman Al-Amri who was in Jeddah and Waleed A. Al-Shehri, who showed up in Rabat. These three men have been cleared of any association with the alleged hijackers.”


[edit on 2-6-2009 by mmiichael]

[edit on 2-6-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
For the most part intelligent people laugh at or just ignore the controlled demolition mythology. I think it's become insidious as a new meme is created and a generation of kids, naturally mistrusting parental authority,
start taking this exotic alternate history as fact rather than seeing what it really is.

Mike


[edit on 7-5-2009 by mmiichael]


Actually, Mike, a great number of "intelligent" people see the collapse of three buildings, only two of which were actually hit by planes, to be controlled demolitions. These people include structural engineers, architects, and even demolition experts. These people cannot be dismissed as delusional children, and in all likelihood they have expertise that stands up against simple dismissal.

The fact that you deny that something is true does not make it untrue. In places where these kinds of arguments determine real outcomes, your dismissal would not get you anywhere, because you haven't offered proof of any other plausible scenario.

I have to keep asking myself why a plane was allowed to meander from Boston through various states, over Kentucky and eventually into Pennsylvania, which took some time, and then was allowed to crash, with not a single military plane responding, even after two buildings had been struck by planes and all airspace had been cleared of traffic. My conclusion is that the miitary responded by shooting the plane down or by standing down. The only other possible explanation is that we had virtually no air defense protecting our most critical cities. I cannot buy that.

There are all the contemporaneous reports of secondary explosions by individuals who appear to be intelligent, sensible and sane. The idea that they all really mistook as explosions the sound of bodies falling or copiers crashing is not credible. In order to accept that, we would have to say that everyone who heard and reported secondary explosions was wrong, and you are right, even though you weren't there, didn't hear the sounds, and are really only speculating.

There are many things that prove to me that the official explanation is innacurate, although I cannot say it has been proven that it was an inside job. The fact that Building 7 went down without being hit by a plane alone makes the official story suspect.

It is not enough for one to say that the chips found and analyzed in this study were really paint chips and not nano-thermite. If you are going to take this position, offer some proof that you are right. Those of us intelligent enough to know that evidence can only be disputed by CONTRARY evidence already know this. I welcome any evidence you have that studies revealed that paint chips somehow survived the pulverizing fire that melted these buildings to the ground, ground cement into dust, and created a river of molten steel that burned for three months.

And please, if you can, give me the brand name of this amazing fire-resistant paint, because I'll use it on and in my house and stop putting batteries in my smoke detectors.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by dark_horse

Actually, Mike, a great number of "intelligent" people see the collapse of three buildings, only two of which were actually hit by planes, to be controlled demolitions. These people include structural engineers, architects, and even demolition experts. These people cannot be dismissed as delusional children, and in all likelihood they have expertise that stands up against simple dismissal.

The fact that you deny that something is true does not make it untrue. In places where these kinds of arguments determine real outcomes, your dismissal would not get you anywhere, because you haven't offered proof of any other plausible scenario.



I'll reply because you ask reasonably.

First off, if you go to sources beyond the 9/11 conspiracy world you'll find that what happened with the destruction of those buildings is a very different story from what you might have read.

And I'm not talking about the supposed official story. For every engineer that has trouble with the official NIST report there are 1000 who did not. They don't look for attention and career opportunities so we don't hear from them as much.

And check investigations done by people from other countries as well as ordinary American citizens who prefer actual truth to quasi-fiction.

As to the exploding paint. Well it was covered in laborious detail in this very thread and shown to be bunk of the first magnitude. Those with college course science degrees who consider themselves experts in multi-disciplinary fields have dissenting remarks. They should be grateful professionals even bother to reply to their questions on pseudoscience accompanied by adolescent histrionics.

I've given up arguing why anyone would go to near impossible efforts of taking a building apart, planting explosives requiring precision timing, risk getting exposed, all to the end of further destroying already destroyed structures that would be taken down anyway. Just another dumb theory for lunatic fringe advocates and Youtube detectives. Of which there is no shortage.

The real outstanding questions are concerns far more internecine. Who in the US intelligence agencies was aware there was an impending attack from Middle East terrorists? Did they know specifics like dates and targets? Why was there lack of communication between agencies? How much filtered up to the White House and to what extent? Who knew?

Why is most of the 9/11 funding traceable to Saudi financial institutions? Why did the US act on so many levels in the interests of the Saudi royalty in response?

Why has the death of Osama bin Laden been concealed for so many years? Why does the CIA perpetuate this disinformation? Was he involved in the planning and to what extent?

What role did Pakistan play in all this? Why is their involvement never discussed?

Many other outstanding questions involving international politics and supposed US allies in the Muslim world.


Mike



[edit on 3-6-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
For every engineer that has trouble with the official NIST report there are 1000 who did not.


Actually I think a more realistic rendering of this statement would be for every 1 engineer that read through the NIST report, there were at least 1000 who still have not, and have no idea what it technically says, nor particularly care. Of all the engineers I know personally (except those on this website), none of them have ever looked at the NIST report, and that includes my engineering and physics professors. They are too busy and also assume that everything is ok because they have not yet heard otherwise from other professionals, such as these non-profit organizations.

I'm not really going to ask about it but it seems to me that you really think Americans do all the things they're "supposed" to, the way they're "supposed" to, to a degree that I just don't see in real life. You think a majority of people would actually jump all over a 10,000+ page technical report on an event 5 or 6 years in the past and individually critique it to their personal satisfaction? I just saw a thread showing 80% of American families didn't even read a single book last year. I'm just saying, let's be realistic, not assume everything here is perfect and every problem is always fixed automatically and immediately by people who just know better. Also historically conventional science is always hard to overturn even in the face of overwhelming evidence (heliocentrism over geocentric theory, for example, quantum mechanics over Newtonian physics, etc.). There is still disagreement between professionals on the issues, on technical issues that I could bring up here that you also would not be able to answer, like what the eutectic mixture was that melted through WTC2 and WTC7 steel as reported in FEMA appendix C.

The obvious thing to do is petition for re-investigation, at least until enough people actually pay attention to these seemingly trivial problems to actually find a definitive answer for them, instead of anyone's speculation. For example, it doesn't take very many resources to put drywall dust all over a steel column, and try to light it and see if it does anything that conventional thermite can't. The question is 'how long must we sing this song' and devote media attention and all these other resources to something that supposedly is easy to debunk.


As to the exploding paint. Well it was covered in laborious detail in this very thread and shown to be bunk of the first magnitude. Those with college course science degrees who consider themselves experts in multi-disciplinary fields have dissenting remarks. They should be grateful professionals even bother to reply to their questions on pseudoscience accompanied by adolescent histrionics.


Instead of responding with pure rhetoric, can you briefly recap what the specific technical issues are with the material in the article?

[edit on 3-6-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

I'm not really going to ask about it but it seems to me that you really think Americans do all the things they're "supposed" to, the way they're "supposed" to, to a degree that I just don't see in real life. You think a majority of people would actually jump all over a 10,000+ page technical report on an event 5 or 6 years in the past? I just saw a thread saying 80% of American families didn't even read a single book last year. I'm just saying, let's be realistic, not assume everything here is perfect and every problem is always fixed automatically and immediately by people who just know better. There is still disagreement between professionals on the issues, on technical issues that I could bring up here that you also would not be able to answer, like what the eutectic mixture was that melted through WTC2 and WTC7 steel as reported in FEMA appendix C.

The obvious thing to do is petition for re-investigation, at least until enough people actually pay attention to these seemingly trivial problems to actually find a definitive answer for them, instead of anyone's speculation. For example, it doesn't take very many resources to put drywall dust all over a steel column, and try to light it and see if it does anything that conventional thermite can't. The question is 'how long must we sing this song' and devote media attention and all these other resources to something that supposedly is easy to debunk.

[...]


Instead of responding with pure rhetoric, can you briefly recap what the specific technical issues are with the material in the article?




Not a chance. Reread what was written. That's why it is archived.

Always long-winded rationalizations and inevitable return to building collapse because the really complex issues require analysis beyond textbook physics.

Millions in the world have engineering degrees. Some are smarter than others. Only a few like to show off trying to prove they've discovered some new evidence proving American complicity in 9/11. Most accept the analysis of other independent professionals who have integrated knowledge of demolition, chemistry, engineering, design, and other related disciplines.

If they look at a controlled demolition scenario they see a total lack of tangible evidence.

Anyway.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia just text messaged me saying they planted the explosives because they wanted a real Hollywood Special Effects finish with the buildings falling down.

Done. We have the answer.

Over and out


Mike



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Instead of responding with pure rhetoric, can you briefly recap what the specific technical issues are with the material in the article?


Not a chance. Reread what was written. That's why it is archived.


It's obvious why you post here when you will happily type a paragraph of veiled insults and vitriol but outright refuse to even briefly recap the technical points I am trying so hard to discuss.

I will read back through this thread and find nothing but more of this same run-around. I will ask again for you to post any evidence whatsoever that the Jones, et al article is "bunk," as you put it. Whatever that is supposed to mean in technical terms, I couldn't say, because you refuse to even elaborate.


Millions in the world have engineering degrees.


And like I said, not even 1 in 1000 have actually read the NIST report or even really care about the technical details of the WTC collapses. Most people in this country are probably still unaware that a third skyscraper even collapsed that day.

You just keep having faith in your perception of what most people think and we'll just agree to disagree on the legitimacy of that faith.

[edit on 3-6-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 02:04 AM
link   
That is a cool story. In highschool i had a boyfriend that made some thermite. Now i know it was probably not even close to the weapons grade they see there but it is some pretty nasty stuff.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I will read back through this thread and find nothing but more of this same run-around. I will ask again for you to post any evidence whatsoever that the Jones, et al article is "bunk," as you put it. Whatever that is supposed to mean in technical terms, I couldn't say, because you refuse to even elaborate.



If you go through the thread 'pteridine' supplied detailed breakdowns of Jones' paper and it's many fallacies along with sound chemistry. 'Genradek' and 'ElectricUniverse' among others supplied critical information.

You can go to their profiles and isolate their messages. Most of the scientific information exchange happened before the believers turned the thread into a self-congratulatory glee club meeting.




not even 1 in 1000 have actually read the NIST report or even really care about the technical details of the WTC collapses. Most people in this country are probably still unaware that a third skyscraper even collapsed that day.

You just keep having faith in your perception of what most people think and we'll just agree to disagree on the legitimacy of that faith.


When 10,000 people say they saw a meteor shower and 100 say they saw a space fleet, I go with the meteor shower.

You have no idea how many people read through the NIST report or how many read detailed summaries.


We hear about the fruitcake scientists like Jones because they see career opportunities with the Truther community and media attention. Looking at their bogus pseudoscience claims and disbelieving them does not constitute conformity. Just intelligence and common sense.

The No Planes theorists are still around. No doubt a few have university degrees, read through the NIST report, and have issues with it, too. I will just call them idiots.

US Government hating is popular. Finding unanswered questions and inconsistencies in the analysis of the WTC buildings has become a popular pastime. The Internet facilitates it.

The merits of scientific data and analysis is what it's all about. People who have something scientifically original to contribute submit their findings for independent peer review.

Until someone delivers something seriously conflicting that is irrefutable, it's just empty talk.


Mike


[edit on 3-6-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
If you go through the thread 'pteridine' supplied detailed breakdowns of Jones' paper and it's many fallacies along with sound chemistry. 'Genradek' and 'ElectricUniverse' among others supplied critical information.


Instead of giving me actual information you refer me to other people again. I have pteridine on ignore because he's a troll.

I just looked through all their posts on their thread and I'm still not sure you have any idea what you are talking about. What specifically proves that this paper is "bunk"?


When 10,000 people say they saw a meteor shower and 100 say they saw a space fleet, I go with the meteor shower.


Except only about 10 people out of that 10,000 would have actually been there and saw anything at all themselves (and I would have been among them), if you are trying to make this an analogy. And it's still a bad analogy.

I feel like I am having deja vu. You are always talking about what other people believe. I have nothing to argue about, as far as what other people believe. There is a reason they are OTHER people's opinions and not my own. God save us if every single person thought the same way you do, none of us would ever be able to figure out a damned thing because we would be too busy trying to match each other.


You have no idea how many people read through the NIST report or how many read detailed summaries.


I'm yawning. Neither do you. So you are just making things up when you assume all these people HAVE read the report, critiqued it to personal satisfaction, and found no faults in it. Like I said, even more of them haven't read it in the first place. Disagree with me if you want, I don't care.


The merits of scientific data and analysis is what this is all about.


Put up or shut up.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Instead of giving me actual information you refer me to other people again. I have pteridine on ignore because he's a troll.



My Dear BS bray,

'pteridine' knows what he's talking about and always provides hard scientific data. But you refuse to read his messages because they contain solid information instead of conspiracy speculation.

You, my friend, are the troll.

Please do not respond to this or any of my messages again.


Mike



[edit on 3-6-2009 by mmiichael]



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

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Here's a BBC article: (amazing how the US corporate media ignores these troubling details.)


Hijack 'suspects' alive and well
BBC News
Sunday, 23 September, 2001, 12:30 GMT 13:30 UK



I still check in on this thread out of morbid curiosity. Not unexpectedly we have a report made 12 days after 9/11 that was corrected at source.

Keep swapping stories with each other by the campfire. Lots of websites and Youtube to trawl through.



www.debunk911myths.org...

Hijackers still alive?

This claim is based on a report by the BBC on September 23, 2001. The BBC has since reported about the 19 hijackers, and has issued corrections to this story.

No "corrections" were issued. Just a pathetic one word addendum and a lot of unnecessary reiteration to placate the criminal neocon cabal. Probably to avoid getting "accidentally" bombed like Al-Jazeera or kidnapped and tortured for months like the AP and Reuters staff.


In the aftermath of the attacks, there was confusion about names on the list issued by the FBI, as well as lists obtained by the Boston Globe and other media outlets.

Waleed al-Shehri

There was confusion regarding one name on the list -- Waleed Alshehri. In a case of mistaken identity, a different Waleed Alshehri (other than the real hijacker) was initially identified. This Waleed Alshehri came to Daytona Beach, Florida in 1996, took aviation lessons at Embry-Riddle Aeronautics University, and was employed as a pilot for Saudi Arabian Airlines. He was living in Morocco at the time of the 9/11 attacks.

Abdul al-Omari

There was also confusion regarding Abdul al-Omari. Someone with a similar name in south Florida, Abdulrahman S. Alomari, took flight lessons at Flight Safety International...

There seems to have been a LOT of "confusion." Was there also confusion about the matching published photos and personal details of these "hijackers?"

That laughable government psyops Debunk911myths.com makes it sound like it was just a little confusion over similar names.

BTW, why wasn't all this "confusion" over 7 "hijackers" who are still alive ever corrected by the FBI, CIA or corporate US media?



[edit on 3-6-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
The real outstanding questions are concerns far more internecine. Who in the US intelligence agencies was aware there was an impending attack from Middle East terrorists? Did they know specifics like dates and targets?

Who knew about this false-flag terrorist attack? Certainly Cheney and the neocon perpetraitors who said "Angel is next" in referring to Air Force One. Also, the highest levels of the CIA and FBI. Which is why they quashed efforts by subordinate agents to investigate the many concerns that were raised.

Did they know specifics like dates and targets? As surely as FDR knew about every detail of the Pearl Harbor attack weeks in advance. As surely as the Joint Chiefs of Staff knew about the plans for Operation Northwoods in the 1960s.


Why has the death of Osama bin Laden been concealed for so many years? Why does the CIA perpetuate this disinformation? Was he involved in the planning and to what extent?

You mean the posthumous message sent by Osama bin Laden yesterday?
That's easy -- just read 1984. OBL is the modern-day Emmanual Goldstein. Gotta have an invincible global bogeyman to justify permanent war. But you knew that already, didn't you?


What role did Pakistan play in all this? Why is their involvement never discussed?

Because the terrorist "funding" that was given to Pakistan's ISI would've been traced to the CIA. Just like the stock market puts on AA and UA that were never investigated but that were eventually traced to Deutschebank and former CIA Executive Director A.B. "Buzzy" Krongaard.


Many other outstanding questions involving international politics and supposed US allies in the Muslim world.

You mean like the five Dancing Muslims who were arrested on 9/11 driving a van packed with "tons of explosives?"

Good questions, Mike. Seems like you're finally catching on.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Star & Flag

Someone needs to go to jail over this

Alien Mind



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
'pteridine' knows what he's talking about and always provides hard scientific data. But you refuse to read his messages because they contain solid information instead of conspiracy speculation.


You are so cute.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by mmiichael
'pteridine' knows what he's talking about and always provides hard scientific data. But you refuse to read his messages because they contain solid information instead of conspiracy speculation.


You are so cute.



You are stating personal opinion as if it is fact.

You must learn to base your evaluations on independently substantiated data rather than emotional responses that the corporate owned media has programmed into you.

I think manly 'out-of-the-box' thinkers are so adorable.


Mike



[edit on 6-6-2009 by mmiichael]






top topics



 
218
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join