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.

 

An UNMODIFIED Boeing 767 cannot fly @ 510 knots @ Sea Level. (hoax)

page: 4
95
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by spooky24
 


You can prove that these calls were made from the very airplanes that crashed in to the towers/pentagon/shanksville?

Where are the black boxes and cockpit voice recorders?
Why don't 2 of them have serial numbers ascribed to them in the reports?
How could they lose all of the black boxes from the planes that crashed in to the towers when every last single piece of debris was gone over several times both on site and at Fresh kills?
Maybe they didn't find them because they weren't the supposed passenger flights?

Calls from above 20,000 feet were proven impossible to make.
Can you prove the voices on the calls were authentic?

Novice pilots flying 767's like they supposedly did on 9/11 would be like any of us jumping in an Indy racer and making course speed records in the process.
Ain't gonna happen.




posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 





Novice pilots flying 767's like they supposedly did on 9/11 would be like any of us jumping in an Indy racer and making course speed records in the process.
Ain't gonna happen.


Nice analogy. But apparently...the OS'ers are chuck full of testimonies how some guy off the street did it in a simulator...no problem.

I also kick ass in GTA 5...I kick ass like a MF.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


The problem my friend is that you are using science and factual data however we now know that on that particular day the entire laws of physics ceased to function, in fact science as we know it and the principles of engineering were null and void...because that is what we are told to believe.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   
When I watch the first tower collapse on the news It seemed acceptable. When the second tower fell it seemed too much of a mimic of the first.

Maybe it was the animation of two large towers falling after each other so sensibly that made me second guess the intentions of the plot.

But for sure, after finding out about WTC 3 I was horrified at how simple it was for me to conclude that it was done by a BUNCH of old scraggly men trying to achieve something peculiar by being numb to their decision of killing and traumatising many people.

Well that wraps up my feelings on the matter.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 08:54 AM
link   

NewAgeMan
reply to post by Phage
 


Um.. that Vmo/Mmo limit was not at Sea Level Phage, but at 23,000 feet altitude!

The Vmo/Mmo of .86 Mach does not apply at all altitudes! Didn't you see the calc?

This is ridiculous.

You're not really this confused, i can't believe that.

What are you trying to debunk here i don't get it, you cannot move the bar arbitrarily it doesn't work that way.

Edit to add: Check the EAS and CAS for the Vmo/Mmo of the Boeing 767.



And again, the Vd structural dive speed limit for the aircraft is 420, EAS, whereby 425 is the equivalent airspeed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet altitude ie: same dynamic pressure on the airframe. In other words, 420 knots EAS (at sea level) makes perfect sense as the Vd structural limit of the Boeing 767.

This WAS covered in the OP very clearly and in fine detail. I didn't just make it up. It is what it is and it can't be twisted and re-rendered with an aim to deceive or obfuscate it's fundamental truth and reality.

The plane was recorded flying at NINETY knots past it's Vd structural limit of 420, even more beyond it's Vmo, of 360 knots EAS.


To further demonstrate the principal of equivalent airspeed ie: of thinner air at higher altitude, the Vmo/Mmo or max operating speed limit of .86 Mach, at 23,000 feet, becomes the cruising speed limit, at 35,000 ft., with a regular cruising speed of Mach .80, at 35,000 feet.

VMO/MMO = maximum operating limit speed is a speed that may not be deliberately exceeded in any regime of flight (climb, cruise, or descent). Vmo/Mmo must also be differentiated from Vd limit, which is the point beyond which structure failure is imminent. Pilots only see Vmo/Mmo readings, not the Vd limit. Again the Vd limit of the Boeing 767-200 is 420 knots EAS, which at a conservative baseline altitude of 22,000 feet is 5 knots below the .99-1.0 Mach threshold, which is still 90 full knots "slower" as an equivalent airspeed than the south tower plane was flying

Question: Why are there two speeds, i.e VMO-slash-MMO
Answer: VMO/MMO refers to "Airspeed, or Mach Number, whichever is critical at a particular altitude (Remark: Mach no. is usually not calculated below 25,000 ft)

VMO is based on the IAS (indicated airspeed), which is simply speaking measuring the plane's aerodynamic drag.
This aerodynamic drag gets lower in thinner air = at higher altitudes.
A constant indicated airspeed results in a higher Mach number and a higher True Air Speed=TAS, the higher a plane flies.

Examples:

_Alt MSL_IAS__TAS__mph_Mach
___500ft 290kt 290kt 334 0.44
_1,000ft 290kt 296kt 340 0.45
10,000ft 290kt 348kt 400 0.54
25,000ft 290kt 435kt 501 0.72
35,000ft 290kt 493kt 567 0.86

It's important to make these kinds of distinctions, so as not to be fooled into thinking or being led to think, that something like equivalent airspeed is "irrelevant". Again the VMO/MMO of 360/.86 is for 23,000 feet.

So you can't take the Mach number Mmo of .86 Mach, and simply apply it AT ANY ALTITUDE, and say, for example, that at 700 feet altitude and 510 knots, that because this is somewhere around .77 Mach, that the plane was flying within it's VMO/MMO limit. Furthermore, the .86 Mach MMO limit, at 23,000 feet, corresponds to a VMO of 360 knots, EAS (equivalent airspeed).

It's very important to be clear about this, because "people" might try to pull the wool over our eyes and mislead, whether knowingly or unwittingly, by toying with these numbers and creating a false impression ie: that EAS (equivalent airspeed) is irrelevant.


edit on 30-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Nice thread OP.

Of the two options being proposed, if I'm understanding your OP correctly. Either...

A) These were beefed up planes able to fly at those insanely high speeds and not the planes we were led to believe they were...

-or-

B) Without the black boxes (which is odd, having found a passport in near perfect condition) the NTSB and/or RADES got the actual speed of the planes wrong, and they were travelling much slower than reported...

I'd have to go with B.

Which also leads to a lot of other concerns as mentioned in your original posts. Air safety and what not.

But I also choose option B because flying at much slower speeds would make the task of hitting the buildings (neigh impossible @ 510 knots EAS), possible, still highly unprobable for the pilots we are being told we flying, but still at least possible; as pointed out by the pilot for 9/11 truth in the video where he talks about trying to hit the buildings in the simulator. They were able to do it at lower speeds.

But it still leaves the can of worms open. Like where are the black boxes? First they were found then they weren't...ect. Alot of holes in this story (but I'm not gonna go into them, let's stay on topic). so many in fact though, that it's impossible to really cover them all, and I think that was a designed plan by TPTB.

Anyway I applaud your post and efforts. But I think now some 12-13 years since this incident, people have made up there minds. Not too many people sitting on the fence anymore. So it's hard to change minds at this point. Sadly I believe this case will never see the full investigation it deserved originally.
edit on 30-12-2013 by Nola213 because: text added/removed



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by jonnyc55
 


Planes hit, the buildings collapsed, we were attacked!

How could we not have fallen for it, for the Big Lie, i did, even though i was rather perplexed by the way the buildings went down, but it was "seared" into our consciousness, being played over and over again, and after all what else were we to conclude BUT that the plane strikes and fire was the sole causal mechanism of those buildings' destruction.

Nevertheless many people, firemen, and reporters, when it happened, were not immediately of the impression that the buildings "collapsed", at all.

edit on 30-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 09:09 AM
link   
So where are the people who pulled this off? Where are the ones that supposed controlled these planes and missiles and slammed them in the targets? and if they were remote why drill one into the ground instead of decapitating the government like they were trying to?

These are the opposite questions you have to ask when it is all done. Airspeed...sea level...etc...this is all out the window as they were not on approach they were on a mission. That mission was to simply hit the buildings. In both towers you can see they did not hit on the same floor nor in the same area. If they were remote would there not be some more precise and perfect hits or was that to make it 'look' like cave dwellers did this?

Many in the truther movement hammer away at the Commission Report as bunk but you should read it. The whole thing. Start, middle and end. If you do not, many of the statement here are very very ignorant.

The US DID know about 9/11 plan. It is in the report.
The US DID know about the hijackers. It is in the report.
The US DID know it was coming. It is in the report.

This however does not mean they let it happen or planned it. Apply the same logic to some of your statements. I am just unsure still why these threads make the round about once every 2-3 weeks when it is the SAME stuff over and over and over with no hard evidence.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Just like Kennedy, you're never ever going to get the truth on what happened on 9/11.

NEVER!

The only real solution to the problem is to start over.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Nola213
 



Nola213
Nice thread OP.

Of the two options being proposed, if I'm understanding your OP correctly. Either...

A) These were beefed up planes able to fly at those insanely high speeds and not the planes we were led to believe they were...

-or-

B) Without the black boxes (which is odd, having found a passport in near perfect condition) the NTSB and/or RADES got the actual speed of the planes wrong, and they were travelling much slower than reported...

I'd have to go with B.


That is the only logical conclusion to draw, and there are i'm sure more than a few professional pilots who would be forced to agree with you on that score.

Unfortunately, it's incorrect. The plane WAS flying that fast, and was recorded doing so in more ways than the Radar Data from the NTSB, has indicated.


New York Times
February 23, 2002
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE TRADE CENTER CRASHES; First Tower to Fall Was Hit At Higher Speed, Study Finds

By ERIC LIPTON AND JAMES GLANZ

Researchers trying to explain why the World Trade Center's south tower fell first, though struck second, are focusing on new calculations showing that the passenger jet that hit the south tower had been flying as fast as 586 miles an hour, about 100 miles an hour faster than the other hijacked plane.
The speed of the two planes at impact has been painstakingly estimated using a mix of video, radar and even the recorded sounds of the planes passing overhead.
Two sets of estimates, by government and private scientists, have surfaced, but both show that the plane that hit the south tower at 9:02 a.m., United Airlines Flight 175, approached the trade center at extremely high speed, much faster than American Airlines Flight 11, which hit the north tower at 8:46 a.m.
In fact, the United plane was moving so fast that it was at risk of breaking up in midair as it made a final turn toward the south tower, traveling at a speed far exceeding the 767-200 design limit for that altitude, a Boeing official said.
''These guys exceeded even the emergency dive speed,'' said Liz Verdier, a Boeing spokeswoman. ''It's off the chart.''


There a video from the S/E at a distance which shows the entirety of the long approach after leveling out from the dive, but i can't seem to find it.

But basically, by using the videos of the plane on approach, marking off distance traveled in time, a groundspeed of 586mph was deduced, which is almost identical to the NTSB Radar Data analysis. 586mph = 509.2 knots, so it's almost bang on.

This video from the second post in this thread, depicts the observed speed fairly well


Furthermore, the NTSB Flight Tracking Information Report released by FOI request in 2006 reveals an astounding sequence, not only in regards to speed but piloting and target acquisition.



Flight "UA 175": An Incredible Journey

In August 2006 the NTSB, in response to a NSA FOI request, finally released details of the 9/11 flights.

NTSB Releases 9/11 Flight Information

When going over the report in reference to another thread it suddenly dawned on me how incredible a journey the flight of United Airlines 175 actually was. Report Here

The report includes a flight profile, a ground track, A pressure altitude graph derived from radar mode C returns, and a transcript of radio communications.

The following is a "blow by blow" of the alleged plane's astonishing flight, taken from the report:

United Airlines Flight 175 departed Boston Logan at 8:14AM

It reached 31,000 feet at 8:33AM

The final radio transmission was at 8:42AM

Beacon Codes were changed twice within one minute at 8:47AM (possible point of a "radar swap")

UA 175 started into a climbing turn to the South East at 8:51AM

It reached 33,500 feet at 8:53AM

UA 175 began its descent while continuing its turn

It turned towards North East while its descent continued

The "plane" was now headed towards WTC2 in a direction of North east (45 degrees)
at what is termed point (G)

Its altitude at this point was 25,000 feet at 8:58 AM

It was at 24,000 feet at 8:59AM

18,500 feet at 9:00AM

15,000 feet at 9:01AM

9,000 feet at 9:02AM

The "plane" is presumed to have struck its target at a height under 1000 feet at 9:02 40 AM. Mission Accomplished.

(END FLIGHT SUMMARY)

Now point (G) where UA 175 starts heading straight for WTC2 is just east of Trenton, NJ. The targeted tower is approximately sixty miles away at this point.

This is incredible target acquisitioning, but just as incredible is the fact that according to the NTSB report, which was founded on three sets of radar data ( FAA, JFK Approach and USAF) the alleged plane covered the sixty mile distance in approximately 4 minutes and 40 seconds.


edit on 30-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by matafuchs
 





That mission was to simply hit the buildings.


Simply is the last word to be used in the way they chose to do it. If you wanted simple and accurate and not to miss...and you are a human being...than you don't perform death defying acrobatics with a passenger jet before hitting the target...you especially don't do it...if you've never done this sort of thing before.

Performing aerial loops and hurling nose dives...I don't call it simple. The air traffic controllers testified to amazing feats performed...they swore no one would do it in a passenger jet. At least think about that.



If they were remote would there not be some more precise and perfect hits or was that to make it 'look' like cave dwellers did this?


Why would they need to be perfect ?...that would certainly give rise to suspicion. In the end...you said it...they weren't perfectly hit...yet...they collapsed in the same manner...none the less...completely. Makes one wonder...did they just needed to be hit anywhere in the ball park ? How do you explain it ? Different damage...different floors...different sides...different angles of approach...same collapse, and throw in there WTC7 and you got yourself a real Kodak moment there.

it really is that simple apparently...if you go by OS.




SAME stuff over and over and over with no hard evidence.


I think the OP makes a pretty good argument...is it evidence ? At least it's based on real documented numbers. Hard to argue with good math.

The only counter argument i've seen so far is..."prove us that it would break apart after 420 knots". That is a weak counter argument...and almost irrelevant. What we do know...is that flying a passenger plane at 510 knots at sea level would be, if not impossible...than extremely difficult at best. Nobody could plan it the way they did it...and hope to succeed. Yet they did...somehow. Allegedly.

But you keep on believing. It's your choice.
edit on 30-12-2013 by MarioOnTheFly because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 



Radar Swaps

Air Traffic Control (TRACON) operators see all aircraft flying in their sector on a computer screen on which is displayed geographical information (boundaries, coastlines, etc) as well as all aircraft flying within that airspace. The map below displays all the control sectors in the continental US.



For example, the control sector labeled ZDC includes Virginia down to North Carolina and west to West Virginia. Washington DC is marked in red. This sector has dimensions of approximately 450 mi (N/S) by 300 mi (E/W). If one divides the N/S dimension by the number of lines on a standard computer display screen (1024), a distance of 0.43 miles or about 2200 feet.

Two aircraft having this separation will appear as two blips on the screen, but aircraft closer together than this will appear as one. Radar operators (i.e., air traffic controllers) are the only people who are aware of what aircraft are presently in the sky and where they are going. The vast majority of people are completely unaware of such details and, when an aircraft passes overhead, can usually not tell one type from another, let alone what airline or aviation company may own it. This observation, while something of a commonplace, has important implications. If an organization wishes to substitute one aircraft for another without anyone knowing it, the only people it has to deceive are the air traffic controllers.

In other words, as soon as two aircraft get within 2000 feet of one another, there would be a tendency for their respective blips to merge. With a smaller separation, the two aircraft could easily appear as one.
Of course, two aircraft that are that close together run a certain risk of collision – unless they are at different altitudes. Radar screens are two-dimensional in that they represent airspace in the same way as a map does, with the vertical dimension of altitude suppressed.

Every commercial passenger jet carries a transponder, a device that emits a special radio message whenever it senses an incoming radar wave. The signal carries the transponder code that appears on ATC screens as a “data tag,” a small four-line block of text that appears on the controller’s screen, as in the following example:
UAL 93 375 309 NWA LAX 884 FE 3
flight identifier altitude (100s of feet) & airspeed (knots) origin and destination airports other data
The purpose of the code is to make it clear to ATC operators which plane is which. Other information sent by the transponder includes the altitude at which the aircraft is flying. Transponders were implemented many years ago precisely

for the reason that radar blips are otherwise easily confused. Transponders make the controller’s job much easier. (WIKI 2008)

The pilot of an airliner can turn the transponder on or off in the cockpit. He or she can also change the code by keying in new numbers. It takes a pilot less than a minute to key in a new code — or less than a second to turn the unit off. Without a displayed altitude number, it is impossible for a radar operator to tell whether two merged blips represent a potential collision or not. The data tag is displayed if an aircraft’s transponder is turned on, otherwise, the radar operator has no idea of the altitude at which an aircraft happens to be flying.

If one aircraft happens to be within half a kilometer of another, above it, below it, or even slightly behind or ahead of it, the radar operator will see only one aircraft, as long as the two maintain a horizontal (plan view) separation that is no greater than 2000 feet.

Imagine now two aircraft, both headed for the same approximate point on the radar screen, both with their transponders turned off. One is well above the other but, as the blips merge, both planes swerve, each taking the other’s former direction. The operator would simply see the aircraft cross and would have no way of realizing that a swap had taken place. This could be called an “X-swap,” since the maneuver is intended to make a radar operator think that the two flight paths had actually crossed each other.

There are many other swapping patterns available. For example, one plane could apparently catch up and “pass” another when, in fact, it slowed after the blips merged, even as the other speeded up. Such a swap could be called an “I-swap,” since all the action takes place along a straight line.

Another method involves the replacement aircraft climbing out of a valley where it would be invisible to distant radars, even as the other aircraft descended into the valley. Again, a radar operator would see a more or less seamless flight without realizing that he or she had been momentarily seeing not one, but two aircraft on the radar screen.

Of course, if the transponders are turned on, such confusion is unlikely to occur. Even in this case, however, the deception can be complete if the aircraft switch transponder codes.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly
 



"All truth passes through three phases/stages:

First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is fiercely and violently opposed.
Third, it becomes self-evident."

— Arthur Schopenhauer
German philosopher (1788 - 1860)



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


I don't accept the "official" story for 9/11, but I quote,
" at a speed of 510 knots at 700 ft. altitude (sea level), "

700 ft altitude is not sea level. I believe it is 700 ft above sea level. If you misrepresent the facts in your first paragraph then I don't see how you expect anyone to accept anything else you say.
edit on 30-12-2013 by yamammasamonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Freenrgy2
Just like Kennedy, you're never ever going to get the truth on what happened on 9/11.

NEVER!

The only real solution to the problem is to start over.


We can LEARN from history.. and in the process maybe do some justice to the people who were killed, both on that day and thereafter in the name of "security" and "justice" (vengeance).

Just think about what's been done in the name of 9/11.. we're feeling the effects even to this day in terms of warfare, the militarization of the bureaucracy, domestic spying, TSB feel-ups, and all manner of abuse of power which treat the citizen like cattle and a potential enemy of the State.

If the "catastrophic and catalyzing event" were recognized as the Big Lie that it is and represents, then maybe the right place and point to "start over" would be on one bright, sunny, clear blue-skied morning near the dawning of the 21st century. After all, if it's nothing but a Big Lie and murderous HOAX, then it's "trancendent power" to mold and shape history, "even as the experiencing generation passes away" (Zelikow) is lost and rendered null and void, as we are returned to the pre-9/11 innocence of that September morning before it even happened, but not without a solemn remembrance of those who were killed on that tragic day. In other words it didn't REALLY "change the world" after all! Think about that..

Think double-reverse sting, double-bind, REVERSE hoodwink, in the truth at the heart of the matter, told, and who cares who ends up weeping and wailing with blood on their hands and faces, that's not our problem.

Let the winds of truth and liberty and justice for all, blow back into that American flag in an appropriate remembrance of what really happened there where all the fine details are irrelevant once it becomes clear that the whole thing was nothing but a murderous hoax to realize a narrow agenda, at the expense of human freedom, truth, and justice or, in short, as nothing but a giant power grab by the "relevant political community".


"It was the stone that was rejected by the builders, that became the keystone."

"... sacrificed, on the alter of freedom."
~ Rudolf Guiliani, 9/11 memorial service, '03 or '04
ex New York City Mayor

"I ask for mercy, NOT sacrifice."
~ Jesus Christ, God incarnate.


edit on 30-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by yamammasamonkey
 


In regards to the evidence we're examining, 700 feet is akin to sea level, although i stand corrected and instead of "Sea Level", i should have stated more explicitly, "700 feet altitude", although that might not have fit for a thread title.

sorry, my bad.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


DON'T HOLD YOU BREATH.

There IS none. I'm sure there is a speed where an aircraft (767) will break apart but i doubt that 510 knots it it. Probably close to 800-900. But then, you'll probably see the motor's come off first, not the fuselage break up. There is a certain amount of safety thats build in to allow the aircraft to exceed the "normal' limits of the frame. Like a submarine. It's built for a "MAX" depth but can go deeper. It just has a greater risk of implosion past a certain depth.

There is a report of the PSA 737 breaking up when it crashed in San Lois(sp) Obispo (the PSA flight that was brought down by a disgruntled employee as it broke the sound barrier on the way down (720+).

I'm sure that a 767, full throttle, could go 510+ without breaking up, at street level.

The "9/11'ers" will never be satisfied that a bunch of religious fanatics caused the crashes. Did the the US know it was coming? Well, they for sure had info that Al Qaida wanted to use airplanes as weapons. Did they do anything about it? NO.
Just like the Brits new Japan was going to attack the Hawaiian islands but they didn't tell the US? NO! Cause they NEEDED us in the war or they were going to be over run by the Nazi's.

Was it missiles? NO. It was airplanes. With people on board who were ALL killed (I knew one of them). No, they are not held in some "camp". They are all dead and the parts they could find are buried.

We have more pressing things to worry about like how quickly TPAB are taking away our civil liberties.

edit on 30-12-2013 by wrkn4livn because: spelling fix



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


I wish that were true my man. Unfortunately, what we learn from history is that we often repeat the same mistakes of the past.

My current belief is that we're replaying some of the bits of pieces from the 1920's in our current era. All we need now is an economic collapse, a tyrant who rises to power and a global war.

Do you see what I see?

Do I believe that 9/11 was an inside job? That remains to be seen, but I do believe certain elements within the government probably knew with certainty that such an attack was imminent. I do think that plausible deniablity is exercised often within the higher echelons of power. So, did Bush know? Probably not. But there were probably minions who did.

The question is who is pulling the puppet strings on a global scale. See, I believe that these forces are VERY patient and work in a timeline that spans decades and centuries in order achieve their desired results.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 11:32 AM
link   
This is the official hollywood movie script:

Osama Bin Laden: "I'm gonna hit the US in their most secured buildings, using an incredibly complex and risky plan involving airplanes for which I have no qualified pilots. But what the hell, Allah is on my side so what's to worry, eh?"

(Turns out Allah was indeed on his side, because he managed to bypass US defense and hit 75% of his targets, including one of the most secured buildings in the world. He even got so lucky as to make 3 skyscrapers explode into scrap steel and dust by only hitting 2 of them.)

A Normal Person: "Uuhm, OK, and what is your motive for all this insanity?"

Osama Bin Laden: "Well, I hate that those Americans and the rest of the west are free, and so what choice have I got but to start a war with them? I want to piss them off so bad that they'll come over here, bomb the crap out of my brothers and sisters, and hunt me and my boys down like wild animals, with drones and what not, to finally end up fake-buried in the sea."


soulwaxer
edit on 30-12-2013 by soulwaxer because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by InTheFlesh1980
 


Great Response!!! Nothing more really needs to be said. (you can hear the hands clapping)



new topics

top topics



 
95
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join