Was 9/11 an inside job?[views:63365][posts:246][poll! to vote:click here] to view:click here] ________________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 12:17pm - y_ddraig_goch ""] but of course I'm a moonbat or a twinkydoodle for ever thinking that any of those things isn't a hippy fag emo loving flag burning lie to undermine hamburgers and hot dogs! |
| ________________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 12:18pm - y_ddraig_goch ""] by the way, watch msnbc and you can see all the footage that is never talked about. like the bomb in the high school, or the four jews arrested for celebrating across the river in NJ, or the george washington bridge incident. |
| _______________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 12:23pm - Aura_At_Dusk ""] I guess none of this will matter when the US is a dictatorship next year. |
| __________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 12:27pm - soloman ""] http://911myths.com/ <-- analyzes various theories loose change VS popular mechanics <-- ugly douchebags debate old nerds penn & teller on 911 <-- love this show. |
| _______________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 12:30pm - SkinSandwich ""] IN THIS COUNTRY WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISAGREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [img] |
| _______________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 12:32pm - SkinSandwich ""] Aura_At_Dusk said:jesus christ He has nothing to do with this. Leave him out of it. |
| ________________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 12:42pm - y_ddraig_goch ""] That penn and teller one is pure bullshit, no pun on their show names. The pick the silliest fucks, if not actors, to play the role of conspiracy nuts. |
| ________________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 12:44pm - y_ddraig_goch ""] research operation Norwood. The government had a plan to crash planes into some building in the 60's in order to blame it on Cubans and invade Cuba. but you know... anyone who disagrees with government is automatically in Al-qaida! |
| __________________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 12:47pm - babyshaker nli ""] does anyone else hate when the posts start to be longer than one paragraph. I'm definitly to lazy to read after that point. oh an di think the vietnamese did this.Stay Aware!!!! |
| ____________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 12:48pm - narkybark ""] There's been an omission of evidence for unicorns, but I know they're there. SOMEONE'S MAKING MONEY OFF THE HORN DUST About the only sure thing in this life is, someone's making money, and it's not me. |
| _______________________________ [Sep 11,2007 12:50pm - Yeti ""] we will never know the truth. ever. |
| ________________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 1:03pm - DestroyYouAlot ""] y_ddraig_goch said:To all the people calling names and saying anyone who denies the commission report, refute all of these points with hard evidence. And by the way, since when does questioning the government make a person an ant-american fag? Last time I checked we were Americans because we have the power and freedom to protest government to regress our grievances!!! Bill O'Reilly would argue otherwise. |
| ______________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 1:04pm - the_reverend ""] *zing* |
| ________________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 1:05pm - DestroyYouAlot ""] the_reverend said:*zing* Hey, whadda ya want, I'm late for lunch. They can't all be winners. |
| ____________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 1:32pm - PatMeebles ""] y_ddraig_goch said:research operation Norwood. The government had a plan to crash planes into some building in the 60's in order to blame it on Cubans and invade Cuba. but you know... anyone who disagrees with government is automatically in Al-qaida! No, a general thought up an idea that was never used. And no one wants to address the issue of why the government hasn't faked a couple nukes in Iraq. Without this, you've nothing but alleged anomalies which CAN occur. Everything can't always be fully explained, and a lack of proper explanation doesn't automatically lead to proof of an opposite, whether it's 9/11, Creationism, or Holocaust denial. |
| ______________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 1:35pm - the_reverend ""] I kept figuring we would arm a nuke from russia, get it into iran/q and then blow it up blaming terrorists. |
| ______________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 1:35pm - the_reverend ""] oh, though you can't really import radioactive oil. |
| __________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 1:41pm - niccolai ""] Yea you can, you just gotta call it something else. |
| ______________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 1:45pm - Aura_At_Dusk ""] I suggest everyone re-watch Canadian Bacon...thats a good movie |
| ________________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 1:45pm - DestroyYouAlot ""] niccolai said:Yea you can, you just gotta call it something else. "Freedom juice?" |
| ____________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 1:59pm - PatMeebles ""] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm 9/11 demolition theory challenged South tower of New York's World Trade Center collapses after attacks on 11 September 2001. Image: AP The study analysed how the twin towers collapsed An analysis of the World Trade Center collapse has challenged a conspiracy theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks. The study by a Cambridge University engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total. One of many conspiracy theories proposes that the buildings came down in a manner consistent with a "controlled demolition". The new data shows this is not needed to explain the way the towers fell. Over 2,800 people were killed in the devastating attacks on New York. After reviewing television footage of the Trade Center's destruction, engineers had proposed the idea of "progressive collapse" to explain the way the twin towers disintegrated on 11 September 2001. This mode of structural failure describes the way the building fell straight down rather than toppling, with each successive floor crushing the one beneath (an effect called "pancaking"). Resistance to collapse Dr Keith Seffen set out to test mathematically whether this chain reaction really could explain what happened in Lower Manhattan six years ago. The findings are to be published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. Previous studies have tended to focus on the initial stages of collapse, showing that there was an initial, localised failure around the aircraft impact zones, and that this probably led to the progressive collapse of both structures. Man stands amid rubble of the World Trade Center, AFP/Getty Once the collapse began, it was destined to be "rapid and total" In other words, the damaged parts of the tower were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts. "The initiation part has been quantified by many people; but no one had put numbers on the progressive collapse," Dr Seffen told the BBC News website. Dr Seffen was able to calculate the "residual capacity" of the undamaged building: that is, simply speaking, the ability of the undamaged structure to resist or comply with collapse. His calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down. This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground. 'Fair assumption' The University of Cambridge engineer said his results therefore suggested progressive collapse was "a fair assumption in terms of how the building fell". "One thing that confounded engineers was how falling parts of the structure ploughed through undamaged building beneath and brought the towers down so quickly," said Dr Seffen. The south tower of the World Trade Center collapses, AP Conspiracy theorists see evidence of a "controlled detonation" He added that his calculations showed this was a "very ordinary thing to happen" and that no other intervention, such as explosive charges laid inside the building, was needed to explain the behaviour of the buildings. The controlled detonation idea, espoused on several internet websites, asserts that the manner of collapse is consistent with synchronised rows of explosives going off inside the World Trade Center. This would have generated a demolition wave that explained the speed, uniformity and similarity between the collapses of both towers. Conspiracy theorists assert that these explosive "squibs" can actually be seen going off in photos and video footage of the collapse. These appear as ejections of gas and debris from the sides of the building, well below the descending rubble. Other observers say this could be explained by debris falling down lift shafts and impacting on lower floors during the collapse. Dr Seffen's research could help inform future building design. |
| ________________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 2:10pm - DestroyYouAlot ""] Quite a lot of this can be boiled down to, "I can cite many credible references that this did happen, and you can cite many credible references stating that it didn't." Unfortunately, by the nature of media coverage in the US, sources stating things that agree with the administration's party line are going to be lent credibility, while sources disagreeing are going to be - by default - presented as easily dismissable. What's more, the same thing is happening in this thread - if one person copypastes a lengthy diatribe from one place, stating that some shady shit happened, another is going to label them a kooky Kool-Aid drinker, and copypaste an equally credible (and opposing) diatribe to prove their point. None of you knows whether it did or didn't happen, no matter how much you'd like to have one up on your opposite number - the fact still remains that just about any well-constructed conspiracy theory regarding this issue could have happened, and - whether the Fox viewers around here like it or not - most of them are at least as plausible as anything we've heard from Washington. The government's story is not, by the nature of the source alone, any more believable than any other viewpoint; past experience has shown that, if anything, it's actually less so. |
| ______________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 2:14pm - Aura_At_Dusk ""] I read that article earlier today... I have never read an article with less solid information. The whole article is just filled with calculations and suggestions on how this guy thinks the towers fell. Very uninformative. This is just one an article on this guys opinion. By all rights this shouldn't have been written there is no need, all i have from reading this is i know now what this guy thinks it is...I didn't care to know that. |
| ____________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 2:29pm - PatMeebles ""] Aura_At_Dusk said:I read that article earlier today... I have never read an article with less solid information. The whole article is just filled with calculations and suggestions on how this guy thinks the towers fell. Very uninformative. This is just one an article on this guys opinion. By all rights this shouldn't have been written there is no need, all i have from reading this is i know now what this guy thinks it is...I didn't care to know that. Oh yes, equations and calculations by a professor at Cambridge university are sooooooo pointless. And his opinions are soooo inadmissible because they were reached with those calculations. Seriously, I could just change who you're talking about and this could easily have been written about alex jones, and you'd be equally appalled by the stupidity of the statement. |
| ____________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 2:36pm - PatMeebles ""] DestroyYouAlot said:Quite a lot of this can be boiled down to, "I can cite many credible references that this did happen, and you can cite many credible references stating that it didn't." Unfortunately, by the nature of media coverage in the US, sources stating things that agree with the administration's party line are going to be lent credibility, while sources disagreeing are going to be - by default - presented as easily dismissable. What's more, the same thing is happening in this thread - if one person copypastes a lengthy diatribe from one place, stating that some shady shit happened, another is going to label them a kooky Kool-Aid drinker, and copypaste an equally credible (and opposing) diatribe to prove their point. None of you knows whether it did or didn't happen, no matter how much you'd like to have one up on your opposite number - the fact still remains that just about any well-constructed conspiracy theory regarding this issue could have happened, and - whether the Fox viewers around here like it or not - most of them are at least as plausible as anything we've heard from Washington. The government's story is not, by the nature of the source alone, any more believable than any other viewpoint; past experience has shown that, if anything, it's actually less so. You've just stated that both viewpoints are equally credible, and then went ahead and said the official story is less credible. Where the hell are you? And to reiterate... Unfortunately, by the nature of media coverage in the US, sources stating things that agree with the administration's party line are going to be lent credibility, while sources disagreeing are going to be - by default - presented as easily dismissable. Yeah, that's exactly how the media addresses viewpoints against Bush... except for tax policy, abortion, energy, global warming, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Palestine, Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame, Gonzales Firing attorney's, Bush v. Gore, Keith Olbermann... am I done? ... oh wait... Supreme Court nominees, Terri Schaivo, abstinence only education, embryonic stem cell research, Darfur, John Bolton, the UN corruption in general, government spending... |
| ______________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 2:42pm - Aura_At_Dusk ""] I don't care who wrote the article, It just isn't very persuasive. He says it himself by calling it a "Fair Assumption." And they start off statements by saying "His calculations suggest..." Key words here being assumption and suggest, any one can assume and suggest and he doesnt have a PhD in the field of falling towers.I'm sure if you asked him is this the reasons the towers fell? He would say this is how i think they fell. |
| ____________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 2:54pm - PatMeebles ""] So a professor of mathematics who is getting this particular work published in The Journal of Engineering Mechanics is somehow not as up to par as a college dropout and a paranoid lunatic who thinks galileo's major contribution was telling people the earth was round? |
| ________________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 3:00pm - DestroyYouAlot ""] PatMeebles said: You've just stated that both viewpoints are equally credible, and then went ahead and said the official story is less credible. Where the hell are you? Exactly - either viewpoint is, on its own merits, equally valid; it's just that we happen to have a government which reflexively lies to us. Yeah, that's exactly how the media addresses viewpoints against Bush... except for tax policy, abortion, energy, global warming, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Palestine, Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame, Gonzales Firing attorney's, Bush v. Gore, Keith Olbermann... am I done? ... oh wait... Supreme Court nominees, Terri Schaivo, abstinence only education, embryonic stem cell research, Darfur, John Bolton, the UN corruption in general, government spending... Errr, yeah, pretty much. The sitting administration is pretty far-out and wacky on a lot of things (not least some of the stuff you mentioned); the mainstream media pretty much gives them free passes on most of it. If it comes out as slightly critical of some things, that's generally because the official position in question is simply off the fucking map. The liberal media is a laughable fallacy; it only exists on conservative talk radio. Edit: Now, the entertainment industry - which, admittedly, the news media resembles more and more every day - is unabashedly Democratic (if not strictly liberal). They're full of shit in their own way, but it's a bit of a stretch to paint the media with the same brush. |
| ______________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 3:00pm - the_reverend ""] the earth is round? a witch! burn him! heretic! |
| ______________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 3:01pm - Aura_At_Dusk ""] I didn't say he wasn't up to par this has nothing to do with golf. Just saying i don't believe his opinion. I wish i could believe everything that was written down it would be so much easier....and like you brought up at one point it was believed that the world was flat, im sure that was a huge shock to them because it was written down it had to be true, so what makes this so impossible? Professors and scientists are wrong all the time but they correct themselves when they get new information. So im sure his theory he wouldn't set in stone |
| ______________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 3:02pm - the_reverend ""] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society |
| ____________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 3:03pm - PatMeebles ""] Just because the media is not far ENOUGH to the left for you doesn't mean it isn't left at all. |
| _______________________________ [Sep 11,2007 3:03pm - Murph ""] PatMeebles said:DestroyYouAlot said:Quite a lot of this can be boiled down to, "I can cite many credible references that this did happen, and you can cite many credible references stating that it didn't." Unfortunately, by the nature of media coverage in the US, sources stating things that agree with the administration's party line are going to be lent credibility, while sources disagreeing are going to be - by default - presented as easily dismissable. What's more, the same thing is happening in this thread - if one person copypastes a lengthy diatribe from one place, stating that some shady shit happened, another is going to label them a kooky Kool-Aid drinker, and copypaste an equally credible (and opposing) diatribe to prove their point. None of you knows whether it did or didn't happen, no matter how much you'd like to have one up on your opposite number - the fact still remains that just about any well-constructed conspiracy theory regarding this issue could have happened, and - whether the Fox viewers around here like it or not - most of them are at least as plausible as anything we've heard from Washington. The government's story is not, by the nature of the source alone, any more believable than any other viewpoint; past experience has shown that, if anything, it's actually less so. You've just stated that both viewpoints are equally credible, and then went ahead and said the official story is less credible. Where the hell are you? And to reiterate... Unfortunately, by the nature of media coverage in the US, sources stating things that agree with the administration's party line are going to be lent credibility, while sources disagreeing are going to be - by default - presented as easily dismissable. Yeah, that's exactly how the media addresses viewpoints against Bush... except for tax policy, abortion, energy, global warming, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Palestine, Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame, Gonzales Firing attorney's, Bush v. Gore, Keith Olbermann... am I done? ... oh wait... Supreme Court nominees, Terri Schaivo, abstinence only education, embryonic stem cell research, Darfur, John Bolton, the UN corruption in general, government spending... Actually, Destroy equalled the references and "diatribes" used, not the actual viewpoints, ie. government conspiracy or terrorist attack. Personally, none of this matters to me, because whether it was terrorists, or the government (which I really can't seem to agree with), a lot of people died, and a lot more are going to die due to severe cultural issues. There really is no way to cede peace from this situation, because Iraq War/Afghan campaign, or no Iraq War/Afghan campaign, there will still be people, and in some cases militant people, who will try to break this country. Lessons of history: every major empire (and if you don't think we're virtual world empire, you're a fucking moron) will have its allies, enemies, and eventually, it's end. As long as there is religion, we're all fucked. Because without something semi-concrete to stand on, billons of people trying to play a guessing game of how to live will only create more tension, and the hopeful dream of oneday becoming "global citizens" is just that, a figment for fools. |
| ________________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 3:12pm - DestroyYouAlot ""] PatMeebles said:Just because the media is not far ENOUGH to the left for you doesn't mean it isn't left at all. You're barking up the wrong tree; I don't want it to be "far to the left" at all. Sorry, no liberal here to scapegoat, just someone who pays attention. Be that as it may, the media is - if anything - unabashedly conservative, such as it as, to the same extent as the sitting administration is. Any criticism is toothless and timid. Just like they were "liberal" to the same tune that the sitting administration was ten years ago. Of course, one could argue (correctly) that neither administration stood for the classic conservative (or liberal) principles anyway, but that's a whole other discussion. Edited for clunky sentence structure. |
| ____________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 3:12pm - PatMeebles ""] Aura_At_Dusk said:I didn't say he wasn't up to par this has nothing to do with golf. ha... ha... Just saying i don't believe his opinion. I wish i could believe everything that was written down it would be so much easier....and like you brought up at one point it was believed that the world was flat, im sure that was a huge shock to them because it was written down it had to be true, so what makes this so impossible? Professors and scientists are wrong all the time but they correct themselves when they get new information. So im sure his theory he wouldn't set in stone You haven't even read the equations. You have nothing to try to falsify in the first place. You're just reflexively denying what he's saying because it doesn't fit into your preconceived notions. And you're right. Professors are wrong all the time. So it's entirely plausible that they couldn't account for every scenario when designing the WTC in the early 1960's (when computer models didn't exist that were accurate enough). But I don't think the issue is my inability to accept that scientists can be wrong. It's your inability to accept that rebuttals from conspiracy theorists can and will be wrong, too. By the way, math is of a level of importance in determining everyday and scientific situations that denying an equation's ability to analyze events shows just how small a grasp you have on the world. Why, the earth is round? But you can't SEE that! All you have is mathematical equations! What? You say we're orbiting the sun and not vice versa. But you can't SEE that! All you have is mathematical equations based on star positions! Math is useless! haha |
| ____________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 3:14pm - PatMeebles ""] DestroyYouAlot said:PatMeebles said:Just because the media is not far ENOUGH to the left for you doesn't mean it isn't left at all. You're barking up the wrong tree; I don't want it to be "far to the left" at all. Sorry, no liberal here to scapegoat, just someone who pays attention. Be that as it may, the media is - if anything - unabashedly conservative, such as it as, to the same extent as the sitting administration is. Any criticism is toothless and timid. The same way as they were "liberal" in the same way that the sitting administration was ten years ago. Of course, one could argue (correctly) that neither administration stood for the classic conservative (or liberal) principles anyway, but that's a whole other discussion. Do you even watch the news? Oh wait, you must just watch cherry picked clips from prison planet. And you're self description of "just paying attention" is a laughable defense of any political position. Any prolifer could say I'm not conservative... I just pay attention. Low taxes? Not libertarian, I just pay attention. I'm not against corporations making money because I'm liberal. I'm just paying attention. Completely laughable. |
| _____________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 3:16pm - sacreligion ""] but you also can't say that said cambridge know-it-all wasn't paid to say "hey i made these calculations and since i work at cambridge it must be true" they don't even really explain his logic, they just say he thinks that's how it happened and besides...donald rumsfeld REALLY DID SAY "the missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]" ...doesn't that mean anything to you? at all? REALLY!? |
| ________________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 3:19pm - DestroyYouAlot ""] PatMeebles said:Do you even watch the news? Oh wait, you must just watch cherry picked clips from prison planet. Yes, and no. Once again, you're shooting off in the woods, here; you don't know me. And I'm pretty fucking careful to take any news items with a grain of salt, especially when they come from blogs-masquerading-as-news-sites. (As long as we're profiling, read New Republic, lately?) And you're self description of "just paying attention" is a laughable defense of any political position. Any prolifer could say I'm not conservative... I just pay attention. Low taxes? Not libertarian, I just pay attention. I'm not against corporations making money because I'm liberal. I'm just paying attention. Completely laughable. So what does it make me when I'm both? (For low taxes, against corporate bloat?) Sorry, I'm not on the map you're using. Edit: For what it's worth, you're at least partially correct - anyone can just say they're "not [X], [they] just pay attention" - I just happen to be right. (I may not be a liberal, but I what I am is an arrogant, know-it-all asshole - and proud of it.) |
| ______________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 3:23pm - Aura_At_Dusk ""] PatMeebles said:Aura_At_Dusk said:I didn't say he wasn't up to par this has nothing to do with golf. ha... ha... Just saying i don't believe his opinion. I wish i could believe everything that was written down it would be so much easier....and like you brought up at one point it was believed that the world was flat, im sure that was a huge shock to them because it was written down it had to be true, so what makes this so impossible? Professors and scientists are wrong all the time but they correct themselves when they get new information. So im sure his theory he wouldn't set in stone You haven't even read the equations. You have nothing to try to falsify in the first place. You're just reflexively denying what he's saying because it doesn't fit into your preconceived notions. And you're right. Professors are wrong all the time. So it's entirely plausible that they couldn't account for every scenario when designing the WTC in the early 1960's (when computer models didn't exist that were accurate enough). But I don't think the issue is my inability to accept that scientists can be wrong. It's your inability to accept that rebuttals from conspiracy theorists can and will be wrong, too. By the way, math is of a level of importance in determining everyday and scientific situations that denying an equation's ability to analyze events shows just how small a grasp you have on the world. Why, the earth is round? But you can't SEE that! All you have is mathematical equations! What? You say we're orbiting the sun and not vice versa. But you can't SEE that! All you have is mathematical equations based on star positions! Math is useless! haha I don't know what we are arguing anymore. I have nothing against math except I didn't like it in school. |
| ______________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 3:23pm - Aura_At_Dusk ""] I bet math took down the world trade center towers |
| ______________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 3:23pm - the_reverend ""] you are wrong pat, the earth was found round my observations not calculations (pythagoras before jebus) |
| ______________________________ [Sep 11,2007 3:26pm - Yeti ""] 9/11 was a conspiracy meant to rehash people's love for the game Rampage. |
| ____________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 3:33pm - PatMeebles ""] Doesn't matter what you label yourself. I'll change up what I said a little bit. Just because the news isn't biased enough in YOUR direction doesn't make biased in the other direction. You might go ahead and say "but why do conservatives always complain about coverage in certain topics?" Well, because actual troops in Iraq, etc. directly contradict what "objective" reports are saying. Speaking of which, why do only liberal papers like the new republic have there Beauchamp's or their Jesse Macbeth's? |
| _____________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 3:38pm - sacreligion ""] because people are different and see things differently. if this truly was an inside job it wouldn't matter, because too many people would be too unsure or maybe even afraid to accept the fact that their government might be fucking them over more than they already know |
| ________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 3:38pm - allen ""] Don't tell me this crap. I knew someone who died on flight 93 so unless they're being kept safe underground I don't want to hear all this nonsense |
| ____________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 3:39pm - PatMeebles ""] But Pythagoras was only a, gasp!, MATHETMATICIAN!!! WE CAN'T TRUST HIM!! |
| _____________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 3:43pm - sacreligion ""] allen said:Don't tell me this crap. I knew someone who died on flight 93 so unless they're being kept safe underground I don't want to hear all this nonsense another crazy theory is that flight 93 was shot down by a fighter jet. apparently some eyewitnesses said they saw one but they could be lying. fuck it. everyone's lying. i don't care anymore. i'm going about my business and if anyone fucks with me i'll fuckin kill em. |
| ______________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 3:44pm - the_reverend ""] but pythagoras figured out the world was round through observations. it wasn't till 200 years later that someone figured out the earth was round through mathmatics. I forget who that was. anyone who believes that the government didn't lie to us about 9/11 isn't thinking... look, they lied to use about the moon landing and who shot JFK. and did they do anything when JR from dallas was shot? no, not a thing. I rest my case. |
| _____________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 3:47pm - sacreligion ""] pythagoras invented the right triangle, and we all know that's a lie |
| ___________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 3:51pm - kkkramer ""] They didn't actually land on the moon? |