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.

 

No Plane Hit The World Trade Center On 9/11

page: 21
19
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jbalon
Oh wow BIG WHOOPDEE DOOO , find one person who says there was no plane and all you truthers believe it as if its the gospel.


except there were MANY including those in the media who didn't see any plane either.

ooooops, i'm sorry...didn't mean for the facts to get in the way of your lack of research and fallacious knowledge on the matter.


Originally posted by Jbalon
You know, ignore the thousands of other New Yorkers who SAW AIRPLANES FLY INTO THE BUILDINGS.


a CLAIM thats been repeatedly debunked and proven absurd


Originally posted by Jbalon
Stop feeding these trolls, just delete this entire post, seriously.


which is one of the things real trolls usually say...




posted on May, 25 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by technical difficulties
If you subscribe to the no planer theory this is what you believe:

1. That either the broadcast was pre-recorded (which would mean everyone who saw it would have to keep it a secret,


prove that would be hard to do.


Originally posted by technical difficulties
including the news crews who filmed it all happening), or the "fakery" was done on the spot.


both are most likely what happened.


Originally posted by technical difficulties
2. That all videos of this were faked, and if there were any videos of "what really happened" they were either confiscated/destroyed.


for the most part, okay, sure... so how would that invalidate nrpt/fakery?


Originally posted by technical difficulties
3. That all of the witnesses were paid off/threatened.


not necessarily all.


Originally posted by technical difficulties
4. That all of the plane parts were planted, among other things.


true and false...

alot was... some didn't need to be if in fact another flying object did the damage.


Originally posted by technical difficulties
5. That speculation is more reliable than facts and evidence.


nah, thats what planers believe and what mostly drives the OCT


Originally posted by technical difficulties
You guys aren't looking for truth, you're looking for fiction and passing it off as truth.

except the facts and evidence prove otherwise...

but since when does your opinion matter in determining truth? it doesn't.


Originally posted by technical difficulties
Now don't get me wrong, the CD'rs are guilty of this too, but at least they try to back up their claims with evidence.


try? they have just like no planers have.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Oh I see, so you're telling me the Government had 10,000+ shock troops sent out on 9/11, stalking every single person in and around the World Trade Centers, and that the second THEY SAW AIRPLANES hit the towers, they immediately brainwashed all these people and forced them to lie else be murdered?

And if this is true, you actually believe that every single person has kept quiet about it? Not telling a single soul? No one's even admitted to this "keep quiet or be murdered" lie ANONYMOUSLY. You are telling me that not one single person out of the 10,000+ that were told to keep quiet didn't call into a radio program, even an alternate one like Coast to Coast AM to claim that this happened to them?

But of course, the Government is going to let truthers who uncover the so-called "truth" behind 9/11 live right?

Of course, in your defense if the Govt went after these people it would only further prove that the Government was behind 9/11 altogether because they're trying to keep the truth wrapped in secrecy.

And what pitiful excuse are truthers using for the passengers on the flights? The airplanes landed at some airport in Ohio and were paid insurmountable sums of money to keep quiet? Never to talk to friends, co-workers, associated and loved ones ever again? Oh right, because the parts of the airplanes, random body parts of the passengers were all planted in NYC by the same shock troops that just minutes before were telling all witnesses to this tragedy to STFU or be murdered.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Orion7911
 



whats a shame is that you can't understand the implications and significance of contradictory footage.


I typed everything in plain English.

It was quite clear, and not open to interpretation....in the case, both times, the B-767s were in shallow dives to build up the speeds we ultimately saw, because it's true, in LEVEL FLIGHT, even with throttles maxed, airplane won't accelerate to those velocities, they need gravity assist.

....it's difficult for non-pilots to comprehend, I guess....but let me tell ou some real-world, real-life (mine) examples.

In NORMAL airline flying naturally we descend, from cruise, as we approach an airport. There are often many ATC requirements, regarding speed restrictions, and altitude restrictions. I'll discuss ALTITUDE restrictions firstly.

In a perfect world, knowing the restrictions ahead, we can decide where to initiate descent...before computers, we could rough-estimate in our heads...nowadays, the FMS software will compute a Top Of Descent point, depending on the speed profile you program into it.

Of course, in busy airspace, with traffic conflicts, ATC may give a rather late clearance to begin descent. We can adapt. In some cases, we just request a deviance from the restriction.

But anyway, my point is...even with engines at Flight Idle, in a clean configuration descent it IS possible to get right up to the VMO airspeeds, and have to be careful not to exceed. And it doesn't require any extreme nose-down attitude, nothing the passengers would notice. Now, imagine we ADDED full thrust, as well!

So, from outside, it still would look "shallow"....people seem to have the crazy notion of some extreme attitude, and it just isn't so.

Take a look at the video re-creation of American 77, at the pentagon, for example. If I recall (and hard to tell, depending on computer monitor resolution) I saw a very minor nose-down attitude...no more than 5-6 degrees....speed builds up very quickly.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   
....it's difficult for non-pilots to comprehend, I guess....but let me tell ou some real-world, real-life (mine) examples.

You're claiming a maneuver which is difficult for non-pilots to comprehend was performed to relative perfection by an alleged non-pilot hijacker?


This is the equivalent of someone not being able to comprehend how to pitch a baseball winning the Cy Young in the Majors.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 


What?

I think it was to you, I suggested some months ago, if you wanted to understand better to get some money and go take a flying lesson.

Would do wonders for your comprehension.

Still, I see the lie and red herring of "non-skilled Arab pilots" is alive and well....

They had several hundred hours' each...that's sufficient for what they had to do. Combined with hours in the simulators, too. REAL simulators, not the desk-top kind that people play with at home.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   
I just think it was an attack that the U.S. government planned and organized so that all the attention was on that attack while they were actually doing something else.... I have no clue what, but just a thought...!!



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by COLETRAIN
I just think it was an attack that the U.S. government planned and organized so that all the attention was on that attack while they were actually doing something else.... I have no clue what, but just a thought...!!
Yeah, thats a possibilty... I don't know if this qualifies but there is some evidence there was a gold heist in wtc5 in progress during the attacks.. 911research.wtc7.net...

But back to the topic of NPT...

Some guy calls up some popular witnesses, their reaction seems pretty strange:


On the other hand, there is a photograph showing the second plane approaching the tower. I think there is a high resolution crop of this image somewere possible from a Book. I don't consider it evidence because I do not have the skills or the tools to check if it is authentic..


I know there are some algorithms based on the noise level of the image who can provide a likelihood of tapering in a specifc area of an image.
But imho its kind of a lost cause anyways, one might probably find something which one side considers evidence the other side compression artifacts.. But if someone is into that go ahead, because I don't think anyone can tell by just looking at it.. But don't say I haven't warned you



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Orion7911
 


It's really ironic that you can accuse me of not addressing your whole post, when your initial reply to me didn't cover the crux of my argument at all. Indeed you didn't - and still don't, despite your protestations - answer my question.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
How is it possible to know for sure that you can "control" everybody who has a camcorder? I repeat, is there a database of who has bought them?

And how could they possibly all be connected to the "perps"? That's just completely mad. Are you suggesting that if you tried to buy a camcorder before 2001 you automatically became inducted into the 911 inside job? Or were you only allowed to buy one if you were connected?
If I may hop in:
The most likely answer is they cannot be sure. But then what is the likelihood of someone filming the first attack at all without being inside the conspiracy? I personally do not belive in such coincidences.

But, yes you may have to consider a wider conspiracy with more people involved. It would have to be an entire subculture in the know. An interesting thought, because it would explain several cultural references in the media and otherwise before the attacks.
It may even be something totaly unrelated to the event it self with its own reason and trigger events in the underground.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Does anybody else believe that alien technology was involved in this? I do, only they would have had the technology to create such perfect real-time holograms. It's all part of the setup for the NWO in my opinion.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by warisover

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

This series, "September Clues" has been posted over and over, been debunked over and over


How do you debunk logic and common sense?


You don't debunk logic and common sense. Here is the logic and common sense. Please debunk it.

Option A:

- Fake videos of planes on multiple broadcasts in real time
- Fake videos of planes on multiple videos obtained by civillians
- Fool thousands of eye witnesses that they are seeing planes
- Create false identities for all of the plane victims
- Create false flight logs and flight info for the planes
- Bribe the airlines into confirming the fake flight longs and flight info
- Create fake family members who have confirmed the takeoff of the airplane and the death of faimly members
- Create fake phone calls from people on the planes to their family
- Create fake DNA and dental records used to identify some of the people who were on the planes
- Keep everyone involved in all of the above silent about the murder of thousands of innocent civillians


Option B:

-put some videos on youtube explaining why the planes were not real



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc
- Fake videos of planes on multiple broadcasts in real time




Originally posted by iamcpc
- Fake videos of planes on multiple videos obtained by civillians

You either have to prove or dispove fakery on every one on a high quality version using professional mechanisms and tool. Both haven't been done.


Originally posted by iamcpc
- Fool thousands of eye witnesses that they are seeing planes




Originally posted by iamcpc
- Create false identities for all of the plane victims
- Create false flight logs and flight info for the planes
- Bribe the airlines into confirming the fake flight longs and flight info
- Create fake family members who have confirmed the takeoff of the airplane and the death of faimly members
- Create fake phone calls from people on the planes to their family
- Create fake DNA and dental records used to identify some of the people who were on the planes
- Keep everyone involved in all of the above silent about the murder of thousands of innocent civillians

Would be valid evidence against NPT imho. Can you link sources?


Originally posted by iamcpc
-put some videos on youtube explaining why the planes were not real

There are no live shots. Everything else is no evidence, nothing to do.
Of course you can debunk the my argument if you prove that everything with a "live" logo is in fact such. But keep in mind there can be only one life shot of an event from one camera.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   
PART 1...


Originally posted by neformore
Nice try at obfuscating the argument. Power dive is your term, not mine. I said shallow dive.


except since ATC report a power dive, its not my term and the facts contradict your OPINION not to mention a plane descending using your term, could not have reached the speed claimed.

thats what i meant by catch 22 and its valid.


Originally posted by neformore
Of course anyone will agree that a plane can reach speeds over 500 at sea level IF THE NOSE OF THE PLANE WAS POINTING STRAIGHT DOWN AT THE EARTH.Most eyewitnesses agree it was in level flight and no such power dive; again supporting fakery.

Which again is a nice way of trying to deflect the term shallow dive to try and support your argument - hell you even got the assertive caps in there as well, but - sorry sunshine - this ain't my first rodeo. You coined the term "power dive" and have tried to associate your own spin on it. It was never used, and you attempt at obfuscation here is not going to work.


the fact YOU didn't use it, doesn't negate my argument or issue. you can't have it both ways.

there's a conundrum each side of the RPT argument is faced with that also puts each side in a catch 22 which in the end, supports nrpt. We win no matter which side you take.

it couldn't have reached the speed claimed in any dive or scenario other than straight down without suffering structural failure and being near impossible anyway to control/maintain etc.. so no real commerical plane thats alleged to be flight 175 could have hit the tower.


Originally posted by neformore
Here's more than ample evidence to support my argument

I beleive Weedwhacker has done that already, but some comments from my part


i believe he hasn't and i believe my responses speak for themselves.


Originally posted by neformore
pilotsfor911truth.org...

..Pilots For 9/11 Truth have calculated the Equivalent Airspeed for EA990


Heres the NTSB report on EA 990 Note the Probable cause


which doesn't account for anything between departure from cruise flight to IMPACT nor does it refute or disprove the PFT statement/analysis.


Originally posted by neformore
The simple fact was that the copilot and pilot were vying for control of the plane when it hit the ocean.

The NTSB's official report into the incident therefore renders this...
Pilots For 9/11 Truth have further studied if a 767 could continue controlled flight at such reported speeds. According to the NTSB, EA990 wreckage was found in two distinct debris fields, indicating in-flight structural failure which has been determined to have occurred a few seconds after recording peak speed. Based on EA990, it is impossible for the alleged United 175 to have continued controlled flight at more than 85 knots over the speed which failed the structure of EA990.

As complete gibberish , because the airplane broke up when it hit the sea - unless that is you want to argue with the NTSB about that as well?


The only response and evidence i need to link to is this source that effectively explains, answers and further disproves your argument is this...

www.youtube.com...


Originally posted by neformore
forum.prisonplanet.com...

"..The "plane" is presumed to have struck its target at a height under 1000 feet at 9:02am

This is incredible target acquisitioning, but just as incredible is the fact that according to the NTSB report, which was


I'd love to check the maths on this from the source. Sadly, I can't find the information it was gained from, particularly the 60 miles figure. My understanding of the data is that the aircraft began its decsent at point G. From what I can gather that was about 42 miles out, which, given the 4 minutes 40 figure (which, oddly is the same from the no planer arguing on pilots for 9/11 truth...) gives an airspeed of 540mph. Not 700. Given that the 767-200ER has a typical cruising speed at altitude of 530mph, coming down, in descent with the throttles wide open suddenly puts everything in the realms of complete possibility.

By the way, Rob Balsamo of pilots for 9/11 truth disagrees with your idea that the plane would fail exceeding VMO. Maybe you should argue that out with him eh?


and once i again i refer to this source which explains and supports the evidence i've presented:

www.youtube.com...

on a side note, some other interesting material on egyptair:
www.enterprisemission.com...


Originally posted by neformore
s1.zetaboards.com...
Weewhacker disagrees, so do I. See his response as to why.


already addressed and answered it.


Originally posted by neformore
..To propose that a Boeing 767 airliner exceeded its designed limit speed of 360 knots by 127 mph to fly through the air at 540 mph is simply not possible. It is not possible because of the thrust required and it's not possible because of the engine fan design which precludes accepting the amount of dense air being forced into it."

Boeing 767 200ER Specs. Note the cruise speed


the above link and several others in my previous response have addressed that as well. If you're just gonna post a link, so will i… but then your link is hardly in context and gives any indepth explanation or "argument" and analysis of the event nor addresses any arguments at all.

PART 2 FOLLOWS.....

[edit on 26-5-2010 by Orion7911]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Part 2...


Originally posted by neformore
www.911research.dsl.pipex.com...

The fact that all the videos apparently show a structurally intact Boeing 767 in controlled flight prior to its collision with WTC2 travelling at such a ridiculously high airspeed is another indicator that whatever the UA175 aircraft was, it was not a production model Boeing 767-200. it was simply something that has been added to the video recording in post production either to conceal what the video recording originally showed, or to add something to the recording that should have been there


Pseudo babble and junk science I'm afraid.


and thats just your opinion i'm afraid.

but IMO it offers more evidence and insight supporting this argument.

you can claim its junk science, but proving with some type of counter-argument it is something entirely different… that link and others present evidence and data supporting what they're asserting… where's yours?

One sentence how its bunk and junk, AINT an argument.


Originally posted by neformore
how so? what exactly is bunk?

Well...your claim that the plane could not make the manoevuer for one.


in the conditions claimed, no… near impossible.


Originally posted by neformore
Ask Rob Balsamo about that.


link please…


Originally posted by neformore
And your claim that the plane was added to the video after the event, which implies that everyone who saw it hit as an eyewitness is lying. Thats bunk, not only that but it insults the intelligence of the people who saw it happen with their own eyes.


except that those who CLAIM to have seen it have been contradicted by OTHERS who didn't… not to mention the ones that claim to have seen a plane never consider that what they saw may have only either appeared to LOOK like a plane from a distance, or was disguised to look like one.

those considerations and FACTors are well within the scope of NRPT, support it as logical and possible, and show why it better fits the evidence that RPT.


Originally posted by neformore
Uh, Mr moderator, If thats how you want to interpret what i'm explaining and believe i'm not serious even though i've been responding to everyones line of questions in-depth presenting a valid argument supporting what i'm claiming which so far imo hasn't been shown to be illogical or wrong, i guess you have a right to that opinion

I sure do. I stand by it as well. Your arguments are not factual and are misinformed, as show above, and misguided. They are based on opinions, not evidence, and they are junk science.

You can bounce words all you like. You can try and play with obfuscations all you like, but - frankly- this no plane theory is, planely (pun intended), junk.
[edit on 21/5/10 by neformore]


nothing but your opinion even though i've presented valid contrary evidence that more than adequately supports my position and argument far from being based on junk science or opinion.

You can claim its junk science and opinion all you want… the facts and evidence prove otherwise says me.


[edit on 26-5-2010 by Orion7911]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by kybertech
If I may hop in:
The most likely answer is they cannot be sure. But then what is the likelihood of someone filming the first attack at all without being inside the conspiracy? I personally do not belive in such coincidences.


It's not that remote a chance. If someone bombed the Millenium Wheel in London, or Big Ben, there's a decent chance of it being caught on camera. More so now, obviously, because of mobile phone videos, but even then I don't think it's much of a coincidence.

Anyway, if the planes in the footage are fake then both are relevant. We're not just talking about the first strike.

Bear in mind that supporting NPT puts you on the same team as someone who argues earlier in the thread - nonsensically - that there are suspiciously large numbers of videos of the second attack. And that there was no reason for people to be filming.

Explaining why people might have been filming the WTC after the first hit seems so pointless, so obvious, that arguing about it with someone represents a departure from commonly accepted norms of common sense and logic. One gets the feeling that at any moment one will be asked to prove that the camcorder existed on September 11 2001.


But, yes you may have to consider a wider conspiracy with more people involved. It would have to be an entire subculture in the know. An interesting thought, because it would explain several cultural references in the media and otherwise before the attacks.
It may even be something totaly unrelated to the event it self with its own reason and trigger events in the underground.


Such a conspiracy is impossible. You're in the realm of They Live, which is good entertainment but to all practical purposes not something that could ever really happen.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by TrickoftheShade]

[edit on 26-5-2010 by TrickoftheShade]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
What's really sad is that you no-planers can't see the ridiculousness of the claims you're peddling. And you keep peddling it over and over and still nobody is falling for it.


no matter how many times you repeat that disinfo mantra, it won't make it anymore true, so i suggest you stop making yourself look foolish and start responding to the actual evidence and arguments we've presented which you evade and use your
"debate challenge" to hide behind as justification for not answering our challenges in on-going debates.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
What I suggest is that you stop making yourself look foolish. You've been challenged by myself and Nefermore to come on the radio show or debate me in the debate forum.
Because you've declined, the only conclusion that one can come to is that you don't really have any evidence of "no planes" and that you're not confident enough in your theories to defend them in a debate either on the radio or in the debate forum.
Furthermore, since you're not confident enough in your theories and don't have any real evidence to win any kind of debate, then the final conclusion that one can only come to is that you're purposely spreading disinformation regardless of the factual evidence or your confidence in your theories.

Everyone that you link to this thread will see that you and Orion keep chickening out of a debate. Therefore, nobody that you link to this thread will take either of you seriously.

So, I would suggest either debate us on the radio show and debate forum, or stop peddling disinformation. It's just as simple as that.

Anything else you type will look like "blah blah blah" to everyone else.


Aside from everything i've repeatedly explained in a contextual logical response and you dodged addressing, again, what purpose does it serve to debate in another debate when the debate you want us to debate in have RESTRICTIONS and unrealistic parameters to measure truth on a subject that shouldn't be bound by any?

The only one chickening out debating is you as casual readers can see by the many posts and arguments and debates you've ignored, evaded and refuse to address with anything other than ad hom jabs and accusations of peddling disinfo which you've failed to even prove whatsoever.

And everyone that you link to any thread where you claim we're chickening out and haven't offered evidence to support our claims, will see proof that you're being intentionally dishonest and misleading and the real one that lacks confidence in their theories, is YOU.

tootles sparky



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Originally posted by kybertech
If I may hop in:
The most likely answer is they cannot be sure. But then what is the likelihood of someone filming the first attack at all without being inside the conspiracy? I personally do not belive in such coincidences.

It's not that remote a chance. If someone bombed the Millenium Wheel in London, or Big Ben, there's a decent chance of it being caught on camera. More so now, obviously, because of mobile phone videos, but even then I don't think it's much of a coincidence.


not even remotely comparable to NYC and 9/11 ... try again.


Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Anyway, if the planes in the footage are fake then both are relevant. We're not just talking about the first strike. Bear in mind that supporting NPT puts you on the same team as someone who argues earlier in the thread - nonsensically - that there are suspiciously large numbers of videos of the second attack.


no it doesn't.


Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Such a conspiracy is impossible. You're in the realm of They Live, which is good entertainment but to all practical purposes not something that could ever really happen.
[edit on 26-5-2010 by TrickoftheShade]


if you're actually claiming such a conspiracy on 9/11 was impossible, thats far more of an ignorant assertion than anything you've said to date... which is why you can't be taken seriously and your opinion is meaningless.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orion7911
not even remotely comparable to NYC and 9/11 ... try again.


What point are you making? You are saying that it's deeply suspicious that there is a shot of the first strike. I don't think it's that odd given the status of the towers and the number of people filming in New York at any given time. It might be mildly unlikely I suppose, but if that's your smoking gun - that it's a bit improbable - then you're going to have to try harder to convince people.


no it doesn't.


It does. You argue above that the number of videos is extraordinary. Given that a plane had just hit the other tower it really isn't at all strange. If you can't grasp this - and you provide no evidence for why you hold this belief - then as I suggest above you are not operating from a rational mindset. Reasoning with you is pointless.


if you're actually claiming such a conspiracy on 9/11 was impossible, thats far more of an ignorant assertion than anything you've said to date... which is why you can't be taken seriously and your opinion is meaningless.


It is to all practical purposes impossible. There's just no way to keep thousands of people quiet. The poster above even seems to suggest there may be tens or hundreds of thousands involved. If you think that is even remotely plausible then you're hopelessly naive.


Edit to add --

And you still haven't answered my question above.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by TrickoftheShade]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jbalon
Oh I see, so you're telling me the Government had 10,000+ shock troops sent out on 9/11, stalking every single person in and around the World Trade Centers, and that the second THEY SAW AIRPLANES hit the towers, they immediately brainwashed all these people and forced them to lie else be murdered?

And if this is true, you actually believe that every single person has kept quiet about it? Not telling a single soul? No one's even admitted to this "keep quiet or be murdered" lie ANONYMOUSLY. You are telling me that not one single person out of the 10,000+ that were told to keep quiet didn't call into a radio program, even an alternate one like Coast to Coast AM to claim that this happened to them?

But of course, the Government is going to let truthers who uncover the so-called "truth" behind 9/11 live right?

Of course, in your defense if the Govt went after these people it would only further prove that the Government was behind 9/11 altogether because they're trying to keep the truth wrapped in secrecy.

And what pitiful excuse are truthers using for the passengers on the flights? The airplanes landed at some airport in Ohio and were paid insurmountable sums of money to keep quiet? Never to talk to friends, co-workers, associated and loved ones ever again? Oh right, because the parts of the airplanes, random body parts of the passengers were all planted in NYC by the same shock troops that just minutes before were telling all witnesses to this tragedy to STFU or be murdered.


sounds like nothing more than a red-herring and strawman

there's ample evidence, facts and posts all over this forum and net that have answered each one of your points ad-naseum... since you make loaded assertions and assumptions citing generalities using sarcasm and a tone that shows you're not interested or open to anything but what you've been told to believe by the gov and msm perps, its a waste of time to attempt any intelligent discourse with you and no reason any supporter of nrpt/fakery needs to bother showing why your argument is worthless...it isn't an argument, and at best, only one of incredulity.




[edit on 26-5-2010 by Orion7911]




top topics



 
19
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join