It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Is this 9/11 nonsense going to ever go away? ZERO eveidence but still pushing on!

page: 13
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 08:35 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 08:35 PM

Originally posted by Section31

Originally posted by illumin8ed
reply to post by Section31

Even if I showed you proof you would deny it.

I don't see any proof that 19 Muslim hijackers controlled the jets on 9/11, but you believe that!

Oh the hypocrisy.

If you showed me evidence, I would consider what you are saying. The problem is that you are speaking to someone who can tell the difference. You are telling everyone a lie. You would have presented your evidence right away. You didn't. You are lying to everyone, and you know you are.

You would have presented your evidence regardless about what others think. You didn't.

edit on 20-9-2010 by Section31 because: (no reason given)

I just posted some evidence, but you're ignoring me in lieu of taking place in a stupid argument. You really do sound like a paid disinformation agent, how pathetic, they should fire you.

edit on 20-9-2010 by Gygar because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 08:37 PM

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by NWOPrimate
OK, I just have to say something here.

No matter what, there is nothing that can make me believe that buildings fall as fast as free fall naturally just because a plane hit it.

Well at least your honest. I give you credit for that.
You've decided that no matter what evidence is presented to you, you will not accept it if it contradicts your beliefs. That's exactly how an extremist believes
But again, at least your honest about your extremist views !

I'm not an extremist. I didn't start this thread, nor have i started any 9/11 threads. I just had to provide my opinion because I don't want anybody think that you guys have the majority, because you don't! The majority, IMO is behind the 9/11 truth movement.
Also, I am no more an extremist than any Christian or any one else who blindly believes in a God Almighty.

edit on 20-9-2010 by NWOPrimate because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 08:37 PM

Originally posted by illumin8ed

Originally posted by GenRadek
As to that video, look at it logically. There was an obvious terrorist attack. The last attack in 93 involved bombs. Hearing explosions in a building that is burning after being struck by a 767, is nothing surprising. of course people will speculate in the initial moments as to what it is, and the obvious thing they will think is "bombs!" I have heard explosions going off in a garage fire I got to watch a few weeks back does that mean there were "secondary devices" inside that garage too? Means nothing.

That is not logic, that is blind ignorance.

First you admit bombs were used at the WTC in 93.

Then you admit there were secondary explosions on 9/11/01.

Then you show your ignorance by suggesting those secondary explosions were "normal" without doing ANY investigation to find the exact truth of what those secondary explosions were.

Sure it could be fuel tanks, sure it could be transformers, sure it could be a lot of things including high explosives. GUESSING IS NOT LOGICAL. Brushing it off as "normal" without doing any investigation to find the exact truth is blind ignorance, and IS NOT LOGICAL.

B.T.W. people inside the WTC heard explosions before the jet hit. So how do you explain that?

Ah so I take it that all explosions = and only = bombs correct? I see, and so when people hear explosions, secondary explosions, in say, a large warehouse fire, or a highrise fire, or a car fire, or a plane fire, then we should automatically suspect bombs in them as well? We should ignore the most probable and jump into the least probable correct? I hope you do not become a professional fire investigator with that outlook.

No, I'm sorry, it is ingorance when instead of investigating into the most probable and most likely causes of explosions in a LARGE fire where a 767 impacted into 4-5 floors of an office building with each floor an acre in size, people jump to the far end and immediately say it was most probably bombs! But what about the many other sources of explosions that are not bomb related? That is not a proper way to do research or investigate anything. That is NOT logical my friend. That is called ignorance. Nice try at trying to flip the debate though. If I hear a loud explosion outside, do i think, oh no! A bomb!!! No usually I think hmm, that was odd. It sounded like an explosion. I look outside and, wow! A car crash. A car crash that sounded like an explosion. Use some logic here. Hearing explosions in a HUGE fire is nothing new or suspect. But trying to take people's first acounts of where they are describing it as best they could, and say it sounded like an explosion or a bomb, and twisting it to mean that there were bombs, is very deceitful.

posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 08:38 PM
Bush and Cheney did not set up the plan to "launch missiles into the Pentagon and WTC buildings killing businessmen and federal employees, fabricate fake videos of airplanes flying into buildings to cover up those missiles and force all news media to broadcast them, set demolition devices and thermite bombs to demolish the buildings with innocent people and rescue crews inside, kill all the passengers on those flights and dispose of the bodies, fake videos of Osama Bin Laden bragging about it, and then convince the majority that Islamic terrorists did it". That is a lot of extraordinary claims (not an exhaustive list) that truthers make that I am skeptical of

posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 08:40 PM
You people were just caught using faulty evidence, and now you want us to take the 9/11 conspiracy theories serious. Wow! Something has gone seriously wrong with how evidence is collected.

Good luck on trying to get the government to open up a new investigation. If this stuff is the best everyone has to offer, I can sleep easily knowing that the official 9/11 story is legit.

edit on 20-9-2010 by Section31 because: Wording

posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 08:40 PM
I really hope the videos I've posted don't get ignored because of these silly ego games, I really think this is some sound information and reasoning that answers a LOT of questions.

Originally posted by Gygar
Interesting, after the posting of this topic I began to research completely unrelated material about ufos and alien technology. After enjoying a particular video detailing the difference between manmade and extraterrestrial ufos, as well as rudimentary synopsis of the actual physics behind them, I did what any avid consumer of hard to find information would do, check out the mans profile. There I found the following videos, which contain more compelling information about the incident than anything else I have ever seen and points very heavily at the who behind the inside job, as well as the how. I hope you enjoy the following links:

Part 1:
Part 2:

I would have made a thread, however I haven't even made 20 posts. Haha you |= |_| ( |< 5 won't even let me have an avatar.

edit on 20-9-2010 by Gygar because: (Personal preference on syntax)

edit on 20-9-2010 by Gygar because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-9-2010 by Gygar because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-9-2010 by Gygar because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-9-2010 by Gygar because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 08:40 PM
reply to post by illumin8ed

Oh really? They felt an explosion below before the plane hit above?

well gee, what about the thousands of New Yorkers that were walking around, inside, outside, the WTC, in the subways, in the sublevels, etc? why arent we hearing this from them? Why is it that nearly 100% of the time, there was a plane hit and then the sounds of explosions? I dont recall hearing about explosions before the impact. I'm pretty sure there would be a lot more people remembering something like that before the impacts. Well lets see your proof or evidence of this.

posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 08:41 PM
reply to post by L1U2C3I4F5E6R

You have no idea. I have been researching these claims for several years now and every time they are debunked, but certain people, and members, wait for a few months, and then post again the same old claims because they have no real evidence.

The last claim from the "9/11 truth movement" is that 1,200+ architects/scientists think it was a controlled demolition, but if you read the evidence they use to support this claim it includes the FAKE "nano-thermite" paper published by Bentham Science Publishing...

The problem is that Bentham Science Publishing has been caught SEVERAL times publishing BS papers which have not been reviewed JUST TO MAKE MONEY...

IF you send a paper and pay them $800 U.S.D. they will accept it without review...

The former chief editor of Bentham Science Publishing quit because that thermite paper was accepted without review, and one of her area of research are nano-particles.

Bentham Publishing Exposed For The Fraud's They Are
Submitted by Just dropping by on Thu, 06/11/2009 - 17:48

* Daily Paul Liberty Forum

Here's an excerpt

Earlier this year, Davis started receiving unsolicited emails from Bentham Science Publishers, which publishes more than 200 "open-access" journals – which turn the conventional business model of academic publishing on its head by charging publication fees to the authors of research papers, and then making the content available for free

As the emails stacked up, Davis was not only encouraged to submit papers, but was also invited to serve on the editorial board of some of Bentham's journals – for which he was told he would be allowed to publish one free article each year. "I received solicitations for journals for which I had no subject expertise at all," says Davis. "It really painted a picture of vanity publishing."

So Davis teamed up with Kent Anderson, a member of the publishing team at The New England Journal of Medicine, to put Bentham's editorial standards to the test. The pair turned to SCIgen, a program that generates nonsensical computer science papers, and submitted the resulting paper to The Open Information Science Journal, published by Bentham.

Read the rest here.

So as the debunkers were saying months ago, this Bentham journal is pay-for-publish vanity journal and the fact that Stephen Jones got his little thermite paper published in it hold no fact because they were willing to publish a paper that made no sense whatsoever, as long as the $800 publication fee cleared..

As the Newscientist article explains Bentham Science Publishers have accepted utter nonsense in the past, and they dont even confirm the identity of the people publishing papers through Bentham Science Publishers...

This publishing company even sends unsolicited emails inviting people to be editors of journals in subject on WHICH THESE PEOPLE HAVE NO EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER...

This journal accepts papers, without verifying either the authors, or whether the content of such papers is real, JUST TO MAKE MORE MONEY...

Let's read some more about the activities of Bentham Science Publishers shall we?...

After the first flush of enthusiasm, however, researchers began to question Benthams activities, not least because many of the invitations they were receiving seemed decidedly badly targeted. For instance, psychologists were being invited to contribute papers on ornithology, health policy researchers were being invited to submit papers on analytical chemistry and economists were being invited to submit papers on sleep research...

To add insult to injury, some of the invitations researchers were receiving were addressed to a completely different person, or the name field was empty, and addressed simply to "Dear Dr.,"...

By March of this year, senior health care research scientist at the University of Toronto Gunther Eysenbach had had enough. Publicly criticising Bentham's activities on his blog, Eysenbach complained..., "All pleas and begging from my side to stop the spamming, as well as clicking on any 'unsubcribe' links did not stop the spam plague from Bentham."

For others, the experience of being targeted by Bentham proved even more frustrating. When Professor John Furedy, Emeritus Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto, received an invitation to be editor-in-chief of the Open Behavioral Science Journal he initially accepted. But after doing so he found himself being bombarded with further invitations. And when Bentham failed to reply to the questions he raised about the new role he had taken on he decided the best course of action was to withdraw his acceptance, reluctant to be associated with a company that behaved in this way. Even though he had resigned, however, Furedy was surprised to see that his name had been added to the list of editors on the journal's web site. And despite repeated requests to Bentham to remove it his name remains there to this day.

I too had by now begun receiving copies of Bentham's invitations — not because I was on its mailing list, but because frustrated researchers were forwarding them to me, and asking me to find out what the dickens was going on.

So I emailed various Bentham directors (including Richard Scott and Matthew Honan), all of whom — with the exception of publications director Mahmood Alam — completely ignored my messages. Moreover, while Alam replied, he proved decidedly unwilling to answer my questions, despite repeated promises that he would. He was equally unwilling to put me in contact with anyone else at the company.

But hey, you seem to be using the same practices of this SCAM Publishing Company... I already demonstrated to your first thread about this research that this company ACCEPTS NONSENSE ARTICLES JUST FOR MONEY...

So that nonsense article about "thermite" found at the WTC is nothing more than crap...

The editor in chief of Bentham, Marie-Paule Pileni, resigned because she says that the "nano-thermite" paper was not reviewed, and that instead it is obvious the paper has political motives.

911 NanoTech Thermite Publisher Accepts Fake Paper, Editors quit

By John R Moffett, Posted by John R Moffett
Previously, the chief editor of the Bentham journal that the Thermite article was published in resigned, and denounced the journal with this statement:I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Period. Despite supposedly being the chief editor, she had not been informed that the thermite article was going to be published in her journal.

The advocates for the nanotech thermite theory of the WTC collapse will never accept the fact that the Bentham Group journals are not actual peer reviewed scientific publications, but scientists all around the world are now convinced of the fact.

BTW, do you want to know what Dr. Marie-Paule Pileni credentials, and topics of research are?...

Marie-Paule Pileni

Adjunct Professor

Professor Dr. Marie-Paule Pileni

Director of the Mesoscopic & Nanometric Materials Laboratory

Chair of Institut Universitaire de France

University P & M Curie, Paris VI

Postal Address: Université Pierre et Marie Curie Case 52, 4 Place Jussieu, 75252 Paris cedex 05

Phone: 33 1 44 27 25 16

Fax: 33 1 44 27 25 15


E-mail Marie-Paule Pileni
Research Interests

Organization of nanomaterials in mesoscopic scale : collective properties
Nanomaterials : synthesis, characterisation and physical properties

Chemical modification of enzymes
Physical chemistry in condensed matter
Colloids sciences
Solar energy
Photophysic and photobiology
Photochemistry in gas phase

Don't you think she would know a thing or two about "nano-thermite"?...

These people, the "9/11 truthers" even have the galls to claim that there were "pyroclastic clouds" from the explosions...and these "supposed architects and scientists" use this claim WHEN IT IS A KNOWN FACT THAT ONLY VOLCANO ERUPTIONS CAN CAUSE PYROCLASTIC CLOUDS/FLOW... Yet these people call themselves architects and scientists?...

edit on 20-9-2010 by ElectricUniverse because: errors

posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 08:42 PM
There are always going to be 2 or more sides to every story. There are always going to be people on each side who refuse to change their minds regardless of whatever evidence the other side comes up with. I don't know who said this quote but I believe it to be absolute truth: "Put more than 2 of us in a room and we start coming up with ways to kill each other."

I believed the OS in the beginning because of the fear and anger brought out by the events that day. I have since changed my mind, mostly because of the near free-fall speed at which tower 7 came down despite no planes hitting it. Stated many times before, never in the history of skyscapers has a building collapsed due to fire. Towers 1 and 2 were hit by planes so the due to fire part isn't a very good argument for their collapse, but tower 7 stands alone as the smoking gun to me.

Either these near stone age people living in caves in Afghanistan came up with this grand scheme to attack the US or the top brass in the White House and Pentagon had something to do with it, whether directly involved in the planning or indirectly by allowing it to happen. I don't know who did this or why, but I do know that there are way too many coincidences for this to have been pure luck on the part of terrorists.

There are lots of passionate people on both sides of this issue and passion can be a great thing, but it can also blind people to the truth.

posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 08:43 PM

Originally posted by Section31
reply to post by NWOPrimate

Hahaha... Someone had pointed out that the guy changed his story.

Let's talk about the video. Willie says at 1:48 that he heard a "BOOM! An explosion so hard it push us upward!" But on 9/11/01 he told CNN it was a "rumble". And on 9/11/02 on CNN again he didn't say anything about any BOOM! How come he changed his story?

Sounds to me like someone wants to make money off the 9/11 truther movement. He is a liar. I don't need to go any further.

edit on 20-9-2010 by Section31 because: (no reason given)

Oh really!? What's the difference if he calls it a boom or a rumble?? Did he make up the story about the guy who got caught in the explosion and came out of the elevator shaft with his skin falling off his bones and taken to an ambulance?

Also.. who are you quoting?? Sounds like you made that up yourself!

posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 08:49 PM
reply to post by thov420

I agree 100%. That is why I was very clear in saying I don't know what happened on 911. I know plenty of what DIDN'T happen though. The official story, for example. Logic and deductive reasoning take care of that - before you even view the increasing amount of facts put forth by experts and witnesses that contradict the OS.

I really don't think this is about the TRUTH, which is hard for me to say. The truth is all that matters to me, but its more about the LIE. At least in this thread. I just find it unsettling that so many people so easily accept a story that anyone with even a small bit of logic would realize had 30 holes within the first two paragraphs.

I think its a horrible example of why we aren't going anywhere as a species. People would rather remain impotent and comfortable just because its more convenient than accepting that the world just might not be what it seems.

posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 08:53 PM
To many pages,I managed to read a few,until I ran into children flinging mud at each other on the play ground.
This is hardly a topic thats up for debate,its more like a childs rant.

OS point of view-9/11 commision report is true,arabs did it and anyone questioning the OS is nuts.And lack the evidence to prove otherwise.

Ok,I get that.

"Truthers"-The OS has to many wholes in it,and theres "evidence" thats proves it.
OK,I get that too.

But I hardly think anyone here is going to find the answer that satisfies them.
And thats because "we" cant.

But,the government can.
Provide another investigation,afterall,more money was spent trying to find out if Billy C. got a BJ or not.
So use some money and investigate the issue.
Or allow a collective of other countries to do an investigation.

All the U.S government has to do is provide all those videos the refuse to release.
Allow me to clarify,the videos that were taken from all the surrounding areas of the pentagon.
Along with the videos from within the pentagon.

And unfortunatly,Rudy gave away the wreckage of the WTC to CHina,so I guess there isnt alot to be looked at there.

And (IMO) anyone who thinks their gov. cares about the average person,is fooling themselves.
History has shown time and again,power cares not for the lesser classes.

Just my 2 cents.

...........exits playground,shaking head

edit on 20-9-2010 by Black_Fox because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 08:58 PM
reply to post by GenRadek

What's the primary difference between you and me?

I back up my assertions with proof -- from MSM sources so you can't whine about "conspiracy websites."

You post nothing but denials and highly misleading personal opinion.

And even when you're not caught blatantly lying about recovered black boxes or shipped-off steel, you still find things to whine about: "Oh, but there's a postscript to the BBC article" (which neither refutes or retracts anything in the original article, especially when the "hijacker's" photo and personal details are published.) Not a question of mixed-up names at that point, is it?

Or when a video of an FDNY firefighter telling passers-by to "CLEAR OUT, there's a BOMB in the building!", you come back with some ridiculous anecdotal story about being confused by "explosions" in a garage fire. So what exploded, a can of spray paint? Or when a FDNY Public Safety Chief mentions hearing several explosions and says he believes "devices were planted in the building," you find some other lame excuse and attempt to cast doubt on the obvious.

I post a Dec. 25, 2001 NY Times article about everyone from engineers to 9/11 family members being very concerned that the WTC steel components should be recovered and examined instead of being immediately shipped off to China. You falsely claim it was done later.

Just like the 9/11 Omission Report, you offer nothing but prevarication, distraction and disinformation

posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 08:59 PM
Originally posted by Black_Fox

Agreed!! And I think you just hit the nail on the head of what the "truthers" want. We want a new investigation into 9/11. Most truthers aren't saying they KNOW what happened. They are saying that they don't know. And here lies the difference between the two sides. We have the left brains who think outside the box and believe something other then that which they were told.. and then we have the right brains who believe what they were told and anybody who disagrees with them is an extremist or Liars or whatever (was just called that by that section 31 soo)...

edit on 20-9-2010 by NWOPrimate because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 09:07 PM
You know there are still arguments, within this site, about FDR and Pearl Harbor!

911 will never go away, there is too much money still to be made off it.

posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 09:15 PM
I could care less what you choose to believe or not believe. And I don't care why you want to whine about what I believe.

For me, it's not so much evidence. There's zero evidence that life exists outside of Earth. But, one would have to be a complete and utter ignoramus to believe we're the only planet in the Universe that supports life. For me, it's the lack of evidence for the official story. Sure, there are plenty of explanations for the events that transpired. But nearly all explanations are debatable ... if not completely absurd. The fact that building 7 was all but ignored is enough for me to know that the 9/11 Commission was a crock, bought and paid for behind the scenes. Even the people that served on the Commission admit that it was more or less a dog and pony show that restricted the evidence that was allowed to be "on the record".

For me, the burden of proof is not on the "truthers" but on those who's job it is to find out what really happened. Which would be the serving administration. If, for some reason, they restricted the findings or information that a Commission felt was necessary to carry out a full and complete investigation, they're just as responsible as those that carried out or planned the attacks.

edit on 20-9-2010 by tyranny22 because: speeling airer

posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 09:16 PM

Originally posted by illumin8ed
reply to post by Section31

Even if I showed you proof you would deny it.

I don't see any proof that 19 Muslim hijackers controlled the jets on 9/11, but you believe that!

Oh the hypocrisy.


I stated a few times, firstly with my original OP that Islamic terrorist can come in all shapes colors and sizes. I also stared that I believe that there may be the possibility that the US gov made some SERIOUS errors in judgment and may of known about the attacks moments or hours before hand. (No proof of this though) I am not saying that there is NOT a cover up of sorts because we all know that the US government can and will fudge numbers and documents and stories to suit its needs.

However, this is a far cry from planning (using hundreds of people, if not thousands) plotting and carrying out a mass scale attack on its own citizens. I do not think that with the worlds governments looking on and the millions if not billions of people with access to education and modern thinking methods that they could get away with it. I do not think that the US government is capable of fooling the world and carrying out these attacks. I know that the US gov has done some really despicable things over the years but this attack would be monumental. The RISK they would be taking and the chances of getting away with it are just too huge.

Yes they have some things to gain, like money and power. But so did lots of governments. They could gain power by Nationalizing the banks and draining them of all resources. They could up tax to 50%. They could up the sale of gas to that of the UK, they could enforce any damn thing they wanted without the need for attacking their own country. They did not need the attack to up security, because they could implement the things they have done without much of a fight.

For the backing for war. Well, we know that if the US really want to go to war they could of fabricated any evidence of anything to suit their goals.

I am not being ignorant of the truth. I have yet to here the whole truth and accusing the US government of these types of atrocities based on some recreation done on someones computer and some theory about how buildings fall (When HIT with an jumbo Jet) full of fuel does not convince me that the truthers are on to something.

Yes the US gov are covering something. BUT its there complete and utter INCOMPETENCE. That is why George Bush looked so pale and weird that day in the classroom. He was warned about this hours before but could do nothing about it. The US gov is not infallible and you can train for this type of crisis using scenarios but when it actually happens its a whole different ball game.

Geroge Bush had two options that day. tell the people that there might be an unprecedented attack on US soil imminently but not know where or how, sending the US people into a mass panic OR not tell the public and hope the solidarity of the US people pulls everyone through together.

The truthers are so caught up with the fact they think the US gov did this or it was set up by the US gov that they overlook one vital thing. Maybe the US gov made a LARGE mistake and there security was not as great as they think it is. Maybe the Terrorist pulled the classic look over here move magicians do while doing something over there. And maybe the US fell for it. That would be embarrassing if it ever got out. They would be a LAUGHING stock. So maybe this is what they are covering up.

But without this proof of the US gov being involved it still remains a terrorist attack. If you look up the definition of terrorist it is just "a person or group that uses or advocates the use or terrorism".

This is exactly what happened in the US attacks. Like I said in my original post. Whoever did this are terrorists. All evidence points to a Islamic connection so therefor the OS of a terrorist attack is correct (regardless of who committed it) and Islamic fundamentalists did it. (this is the only point that could be looked into, but so far its looks to be true).

edit on 093030p://f19Monday by L1U2C3I4F5E6R because: spelling

posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 09:30 PM

Originally posted by thov420

I believed the OS in the beginning because of the fear and anger brought out by the events that day. I have since changed my mind, mostly because of the near free-fall speed at which tower 7 came down despite no planes hitting it. Stated many times before, never in the history of skyscapers has a building collapsed due to fire. Towers 1 and 2 were hit by planes so the due to fire part isn't a very good argument for their collapse, but tower 7 stands alone as the smoking gun to me.

This is just one piece of Evidence that makes complete sense to a layman on how building Seven Collapse. Single point failure. READ it and then pick your hole guys. Enjoy!

Single Point failure Building 7

I am all for differing opinions. I am of the belief that if we ALL had the same beliefs we would find life very boring. I just like people see that there view can be distorted due to many outside factors. This includes peer pressure, info that seems correct and fits the story at first glance, the fact that for people to change their views mean acknowledging they were wrong, being human and choosing a side and having some dislike towards the group you think perpetrated the event(s). These are some of the thing that can bias a view and we are all fallible to this. However, we need to search careful through what we have and what is in front of us. Some time the SIMPLEST answer is the correct answer. If you choose to look elsewhere then you will need to have something very concrete to challenge the belief of others.

edit on 093030p://f37Monday by L1U2C3I4F5E6R because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 09:31 PM
and now we see what all the 2012 hype is about . 2012 is come and go and nothing is going to happen. All people questioning 911 will be laugh at and through into the lot with Niburo-ers . Interesting video , funny thing is it's trashing people who refuse to acknowledge that there are legitimate question to 911

edit on 20-9-2010 by OpusMarkII because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in