eots
no fly list
here comes poor little retarded dive con...with his straw man and his denial.....lol
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Because it dismantles their arguments.
hardly..its because it is trash ...we have researched it well with critical thinking and logic...unlike you
And lots of mind-altering, psychotropic drugs.
look who is calling someone retarded LOLhere comes poor little retarded dive con...with his straw man and his denial.....lol
With all the flaws of our government, all the wrongs they commit, all the rights they are taking away .... and you focus on this ...
Hell, if you want real reasons to hate the government I can make a short list easily, and not one requires a conspiracy theory or fantasy evidence.
Do you watch X-Files for facts ... because, well, that's what they sound like ...
Do you watch X-Files for facts ... because, well, that's what they sound like ...
more corporate media programing on your fragile little eggshell mind ...you poor thing
what chance do you even have,.....
have you eaten in a whileDo you watch X-Files for facts ... because, well, that's what they sound like ...
more corporate media programing on your fragile little eggshell mind ...you poor thing
what chance do you even have,.....
Do you watch X-Files for facts ... because, well, that's what they sound like ...
more corporate media programing on your fragile little eggshell mind ...you poor thing
what chance do you even have,.....
Yeah ... you know you are suppose to mix that koolaide with water and drink it right?
The evidence indicates that the little empty hole has grass growing on all the slopes/inclines . . .
. . . and cannot be more than just a few feet deep. The evidence also says this hole was created before this US Geological Survey picture was taken on April 20, 1994.
The Govt says AA77 crashed into this standing E-ring wall
. . . going 530 miles per hour, when the evidence clearly says that no 100-ton Jetliner ever crashed here.
The rear C-ring wall is only 220 feet from the standing E-ring Wall, but the only evidence we have is a little 8 to 10-feet hole . . .
. . . again saying that no 100-ton Jetliner crashed here; just like these military/aviation experts:
The Govt says WTC-7 Collapsed from building fires/debris, when the evidence shows the 47-story overbuilt skyscraper imploding into its own footprint in 6.6 seconds
. . . collapsing CD-style into a neat little pile, while the buildings on the perimeter remain perfectly intact.
Typical building fires burn at around 800-degrees while red-iron structural steel melts at near 2800 degrees (link).
The reasons that WTC-7 could not possibly burn down from building fires is explained very well in this short video. A steel-framed skyscraper has never burned down in the history of this planet, but the Govt says that happened three times on 9/11; IF you believe the Official Cover Stories.
Those among you voting Yes with Senor Bushie, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their inside-job cohorts should be prepared to provide evidence for WHY you hold to the Official Cover Stories having nothing whatsoever to do with the evidence. A No vote means that you realize the evidence simply does not even begin to match the Official Cover Stories.l
all bunk...not even worth addressing chalk full of popular mechanics catch phrases...in contradiction with NIST...you have read nothing except popular mechanics ...you have not read the 911 commission report or the NIST report.. you .ignore free fall speed ..molten metal,,,the NIST directors doubts over his own work...amateur...pfttt
all bunk...not even worth addressing chalk full of popular mechanics catch phrases...in contradiction with NIST...you have read nothing except popular mechanics ...you have not read the 911 commission report or the NIST report.. you .ignore free fall speed ..molten metal,,,the NIST directors doubts over his own work...amateur...pfttt
How did I know that this is the kind of response I would get?
all bunk...not even worth addressing chalk full of popular mechanics catch phrases...in contradiction with NIST...you have read nothing except popular mechanics ...you have not read the 911 commission report or the NIST report.. you .ignore free fall speed ..molten metal,,,the NIST directors doubts over his own work...amateur...pfttt
How did I know that this is the kind of response I would get?
most likely because you know the bullshit your talking...and its true how uniformed you are so there is not much else you can say
Thanks for the kind words but I do not think I really can answer the poll question since I only read small parts of the 9/11 commission and NIST report.
With all the flaws of our government, all the wrongs they commit, all the rights they are taking away .... and you focus on this ...
Hell, if you want real reasons to hate the government I can make a short list easily, and not one requires a conspiracy theory or fantasy evidence.
The evidence indicates that the little empty hole has grass growing on all the slopes/inclines . . .
Little empty hole?
The hole is huge, look at the satellite image you posted.
Debris is everywhere and there is a massive scorch mark across the land.
Were you expecting an entire plane intact? The fuselage blew up and burned out for crying out loud.
Strange, the topographic version of the map tells a different story.
Your photo is of a reclaimed strip mine not a field, so there's obviously going to be holes there.
Nice try.
Perhaps you need to broaden your perspective of the crash site.
Little? Do you honestly think that after crashing through a Pentagon ring a plane is going to maintain its structural integrity?
Seriously, give the engineers of the Pentagon some credit. They didn't construct the building out of butter.
The aviator starts off with a lie right away about there being no aircraft wings, debris etc.
Yes, it did implode. But it was because of the fact that the support columns gave way after retaining as much as 25% structural damage from the twin towers' collapse along with a 7 hour long diesel fuel fed fire according to the NIST.
Perhaps you should get your eyes checked.
A huge chunk of the building below WTC7 in your picture is missing.
I can't believe you people are still holding on to that misnomer.
The steel does not have to melt for the structure to collapse, but rather only needs to buckle under the pressure of retaining extraordinary downward weight at only half of its structural integrity.
A building fire fed by fuel, jet or diesel, will accomplish temperatures high enough to reduce steel strength by 50% which when combined with physical structural damage is more than enough to bring a building down.