• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is There Any Way To Cure The "Official Report" Believers[W:86, W:141,W:704]

Re: Is There Any Way To Cure The "Official Report" Believers

Okay.


Actually, you do. The flag moved, and the motion was in response to a force, per standard classical mechanics going back to Newton. Saying "something" moved it is a real duh moment. Of course something moved it, or it would've remained stationary! The question - for anyone with half a brain is - WHAT moved it?

No I don't… the premise is that because it moved, it wasn't on the moon. The premise itself is absurd. That it moved, tells us that some force was applied to it. For the premise to be true, the moon would need to be void of the potential for force to be applied… I'll submit that the flag's pole shifted in its mooring… thus the force in play is gravity over the opposing force or whatever failed causing it to shift.

ABC sez: There's virtually no end to the evidence of steel melting…

WHAT? I acknowledged the ad-hoc witness testimony concerning melted steel, but that refers to conditions days and weeks after collapse in the debris pile. There is NO hard evidence. Produce some. Produce ONE thing which proves steel melting was EVEN PRESENT, let alone the cause of collapse.

"FIRE HOT!" Steel Melt when exposed to HOT FIRE for long time."


As I mentioned, and you probably disbelieve, I have a degree (bachelor of science) in physics. If you want to argue physics with me, I'll mop the floor with you. Then everyone will get to see that I DO know the meaning of the word 'ignorant'.

Well, the evidence seems to be trending the other way… but I'm holding out much hope that you'll find your wind soon.

Zdenek Bazant, a world-reknowned structural and mechanical engineer, professor of engineering, author of hundreds of papers on structural engineering and specifically a number of papers about the collapses which are widely recognized as the authoritative analyses on progressive collapse, doesn't seem to agree with you. He says:

Well, there's no end to the people of some academic experience who fail to graps the obvious in the real time crisis. I missed the 2012 election fraud and I stand as one of the preeminent authorities on the planet, regarding the means of otherwise reasonable people to underestimate socialists… .

And you are?

Just a guy that has long made a very nice living building stuff…


NIST disagrees with you and your (lay) pals. They say if the fireproofing hadn't been dislodged by the impacts (something you couldn't possibly have known at the time)

Actually it was known immediately… Such material has a very low bond rating and the forces of impact ALONE were more than enough to detach it from the structure.


One would think a physicist would understand that. But you can rest assured that anyone who's ever paid exquisitely painful fines because their technicians were present within the projected period that the local Fire Marshal claims that such was knocked off super structure, would positively know this…

there was a good chance the buildings could've survived.

Yep… which faded exponentially with every second that the fire continued to burn.
 
Re: Is There Any Way To Cure The "Official Report" Believers

Is there a point at which this discussion returns to the OP - a discussion of a BS study published in a BS news source instead of a real medical journal about people who believe in something that does not exist (an "official story" of 9/11)?
 
Re: Is There Any Way To Cure The "Official Report" Believers

So, we've a got a ****ing birther looking down his nose at truther because "it was obvious the "melting beams" gave way.

Typical for how these arguments go in popular forums where any Tom, Dick or Harry can come in and try to pretend they understand physics from their armchair.
 
Re: Is There Any Way To Cure The "Official Report" Believers

Pseudoscientific claptrap. The thermal degradation of capacity would force collapse long before the phase transition to liquid. Which is what 'melting' is.

I've got a couple of warnings already, so I'll refrain from putting a label on a consistent purveyor of idiocy.

Brother, the means of those beams to sustain the existing loads fails LONG before anything is turned to liquid… You're embarrassing yourself here. Melting is a PROCESS which ENDS in liquefaction… I am begging you to let this go, you lost this one before it ever started. You're fighting nature and you are NEVER going to win that battle.
 
Last edited:
Re: Is There Any Way To Cure The "Official Report" Believers

So, we've a got a ****ing birther looking down his nose at truther because "it was obvious the "melting beams" gave way.

Typical for how these arguments go in popular forums where any Tom, Dick or Harry can come in and try to pretend they understand physics from their armchair.


Well sure, but only because reason is served by fact that Obama has never produced a legitimate Birth cert and steel melts when exposed to sufficient levels of heat over time.

But the trotting out of old argumentum ad populum! Is truly ADORABLE!
 
Re: Is There Any Way To Cure The "Official Report" Believers

So, we've a got a ****ing birther looking down his nose at truther because "it was obvious the "melting beams" gave way.

Typical for how these arguments go in popular forums where any Tom, Dick or Harry can come in and try to pretend they understand physics from their armchair.

officially my take on this subject, a 12 year old can get this
Please think about this, if you saw a large heavy truck stalled on a rail-road crossing
and the fast express from Chicago runs into it at 90 mph and as a result, there is
mass quantities of pulverized material & in fact in the rubble, there is very little to be
found except for bits smaller than a foot-ball. would you wonder if maybe this was a
rather out-of-the-ordinary train wreck?

Given the facts about the "collapse" events of all three buildings that were said
to have "collapsed" that day, its very obvious that something is VERY wrong here.
the Police send in investigators if there is so much as ONE structure that had been
completely and totally destroyed, but now THREE buildings are completely demolished,
and where is the investigation? tests for explosives ( etc .... ) what?

The event was a FRAUD, & the MSM is covering up .. big time!
 
Re: Is There Any Way To Cure The "Official Report" Believers

No I don't… the premise is that because it moved, it wasn't on the moon. The premise itself is absurd. That it moved, tells us that some force was applied to it. For the premise to be true, the moon would need to be void of the potential for force to be applied… I'll submit that the flag's pole shifted in its mooring… thus the force in play is gravity over the opposing force or whatever failed causing it to shift.
Well, at least that's an attempt at an explanation. What you did earlier was to say that because you already knew it was on the moon, whatever explanation there is - which you weren't proferring at the time - had to be something other than air because there's no air on the moon. ****ing incredible. You understand how debates work, right? You can't take as given that which is under dispute. Circular logic.


"FIRE HOT!" Steel Melt when exposed to HOT FIRE for long time."
Idiotic sloganeering. What were the actual max temps, and what is the melting point of steel? When challenged to produce evidence, you did the semantic equivalent of farting. Big surprise.

Well, there's no end to the people of some academic experience who fail to graps the obvious in the real time crisis.
That is true. Even I feel Bazant has his head in the clouds sometimes, but he's a hell of a lot smarter and more knowledgeable about this subject that you can hope to be.

What you don't seem to realize is that you stand in opposition to virtually every tenet of the official story with respect to the collapses. YOU should publish in JEM. YOU should've got the contract to investigate the collapses, not NIST. You would've got the report out much quicker, without those thousands of pesky pages of analysis, and saved the taxpayers millions. Your report would read -

"THERE IS NO MEANS FOR THOSE BEAMS TO NOT READILY MELT BEYOND THEIR MEANS TO SUSTAIN THE MASS WHICH THEY WERE >EXCLUSIVELY< HOLDING."

****ing brilliant! The structural community would've worshipped the ground you walk on.


Just a guy that has long made a very nice living building stuff…
Hope I'm never in one of those structures. You're incompetent. Oh, maybe you're talking about fences and lawnmower sheds. Still...


Actually it was known immediately…
Citation please. YOU don't count.

Such material has a very low bond rating and the forces of impact ALONE were more than enough to detach it from the structure.
Did you see what NIST had to do in physical experiment to strip the fireproofing? And then barely so? There are actually some very good arguments that the fireproofing was not nearly stripped to the degree they assessed.

One would think a physicist would understand that.
I do. I also understand that there is legitimate controversy over whether the extent was as claimed. These rely on arguments based in fluid mechanics, particularly the Reynolds number, and the possible trajectories of debris through the interior. A little over your head.

But you can rest assured that anyone who's ever paid exquisitely painful fines because their technicians were present within the projected period that the local Fire Marshal claims that such was knocked off super structure, would positively know this…
Hell, the fireproofing was falling off on its own before the impacts. There are photos which prove this. But you know what? There's ZERO proof of melted steel.

Yep… which faded exponentially with every second that the fire continued to burn.
Common sense, but still a naked assertion. The fire of 1975, though hardly as widespread or intense, burned for several hours with no appreciable structural degradation. NIST says that the majority of fuel burned off in the fireballs, and the remaining amount was consumed well before collapse, leaving large but otherwise ordinary office fires (and impact damage, of course). The Beijing tower, admittedly radically different construction, was gutted by fire lasting five hours and stood. The longevity with intact fire protection is not so easily assumed.


You act like you're arguing with a truther. You're not. But I am arguing with a birther! :lamo
 
Last edited:
Re: Is There Any Way To Cure The "Official Report" Believers

Brother, the means of those beams to sustain the existing loads fails LONG before anything is turned to liquid…
Jeezus, I just said that in the very thing you quoted!

me said:
The thermal degradation of capacity would force collapse long before the phase transition to liquid.

Wow, you are dense. You almost quoted me word-for-word (except without the erudite vocabulary) in trying to condescendingly argue with me! :lamo

You're embarrassing yourself here.
No, I'm not.

Melting is a PROCESS which ENDS in liquefaction…
Melting IS the process of liquefaction.

WP said:

Heating which does not lead to melting - as was the case in the towers - is not melting. I suppose you'd say if the ambient outdoor temperature increased from -30 to -20 in Barrows Alaska, that the ice is MELTING!

:lamo :lamo :lamo :lamo

I am begging you to let this go...
I can see why. You're in way over your head discussing physical science with someone who has the appropriate education and professional background to show you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.
 
Re: Is There Any Way To Cure The "Official Report" Believers

Well sure, but only because reason is served by fact that Obama has never produced a legitimate Birth cert...
Sounds just like a truther argument to me.

... and steel melts when exposed to sufficient levels of heat over time.
Except it didn't at the WTC, so who cares? Bears **** in the woods, too. It's called non-sequitur.

WP said:
Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.[1] In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. All invalid arguments are special cases of non sequitur.

(Steel melts) => (Truthers are wrong)

is an invalid argument.

But the trotting out of old argumentum ad populum! Is truly ADORABLE!
Latin phraseology doesn't cover the fact that you wouldn't know a logical fallacy if you typed one. You have, and you don't know it.
 
Re: Is There Any Way To Cure The "Official Report" Believers

NIST say it was solely dislodged fireproofing that caused the demise of the towers:

NIST said:
Had the fireproofing not been dislodged, the temperature rise of the structural components would likely have been insufficient to cause the global collapse of the towers...

Arup disagrees with NIST's analysis. They think the building would've gone down with fireproofing intact:

Arup said:
Arup’s analysis concluded that the effect of thermal expansion on the perimeter columns of the towers—even without the airplane impact—could have led to collapse due to the severity of fire occurring on multiple floors and the resulting thermal expansion of structural elements, particularly the floor systems. The Arup analysis conclusively illustrates that even with code-approved fire protection, a severe fire—without aircraft impact—could still lead to collapse

Here are comments from Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, shortly after 9/11.

The steel had protection for about three hours of an office fire, he said.
No mention about fireproofing being dislodged, and this guy's also an expert. Somehow it escaped him.

Dr. James Quintiere doesn't even accept the loss of fireproofing at all:

But some experts remain unconvinced by the study's conclusions. James Quintiere, of the University of Maryland, US, says he does not understand how fireproof insulation could have been dislodged from the buildings' floors and columns.

Neither does Arup buy it, when you get down to it (from the same link):

And Barbara Lane, leader of the Structural Fire Group at UK engineering company Arup, adds: "[We] don't believe that [the dislodging of fireproof material] has been substantiated in any of the published data to date." She adds that it is difficult to extrapolate heat assessments of a material to what might happen when it is actually in place in a building.


So, there's considerable wiggle room even in authoritative circles about the true initiating causes of the collapses, but this is intelligent debate amongst learned parties, not shoot-from-the-hip bull**** coming from a birther who doesn't even know what 'melting' is. :lamo
 
Re: Is There Any Way To Cure The "Official Report" Believers

Q.E.****in' D. Next.
 
Re: Is There Any Way To Cure The "Official Report" Believers

Is there a point at which this discussion returns to the OP - a discussion of a BS study published in a BS news source instead of a real medical journal about people who believe in something that does not exist (an "official story" of 9/11)?
Sorry for the derail. Sometimes you have to crush BS at its source.
 
Re: Is There Any Way To Cure The "Official Report" Believers

Well, at least that's an attempt at an explanation. What you did earlier was to say that because you already knew it was on the moon, whatever explanation there is - which you weren't proferring at the time - had to be something other than air because there's no air on the moon.


Well tell me, given that the elements of circular reasoning are that the conclusion is used as a sustaining premise, show the specifics of my argument as they reflect such reasoning.

There's no evidence that the flag was anywhere BUT the moon. Therefore, given the video, the testimony of hundreds if not thousands of individuals who participated in the exercise, the good name and unvarnished credibility of the men who testified that they flew to the moon, the the presumption MUST be that that is where the flag was. You want to presume otherwise based upon the accusation… I was merely dismissing your premise, based upon the absence of any credible evidence to the contrary… and, what's more, I didn't need to proffer an explanation, given the other substantiating facts, noted above.

You understand how debates work, right? You can't take as given that which is under dispute. Circular logic.

Yes… That's why I held the plausible explanation until you'd exposed all of your exists. As you have recently discovered, that is how debates are won…


Idiotic sloganeering.

So you're saying that fire does not melt steel? Huh… I am fairly sure that you'll find most baccalaureates of physics would disagree… but I suppose you're entitled to embarrass yourself. It's your credibility, I say spend it any way ya like!

What were the actual max temps, and what is the melting point of steel? When challenged to produce evidence, you did the semantic equivalent of farting. Big surprise.

Until now, there has been no challenge in this point. Yet there you are deceitfully asserting such, in a fraudulent attempt to play upon the ignorance of the reader.

Tisk tisk… Populist argument such as yours do not play well in text formats…

Suffice it to say that temperature and time are two variables in the potential for steel liquefaction and given the varying fuels and the Venturi fed nature of such and the considerable period of time… and of course the net result indicating that there was plenty of all necessary elements to get it done… there's not much left to debate. Your protest, not withstanding of course.


That is true. Even I feel Bazant has his head in the clouds sometimes…

Have any of your ad vercundiam rants ever produced success? I seriously doubt they have, but I can assure you that they're DOA where I am present.

There is no potential correlation to the authority of an individual who's testimony conflicts with the incontrovertible facts.

But if you can work it out, I will build a steel structure of substantial mass and place it over his head, and expose that structure to considerable physical abuse, followed by a Venturi fed fuel fire… if he's willing to sign the releases, I am willing to fund it and sell ad time on Youtube to offset expenses and my time…

What you don't seem to realize is that you stand in opposition to virtually every tenet of the official story with respect to the collapses. YOU should publish in JEM. YOU should've got the contract to investigate the collapses, not NIST. You would've got the report out much quicker, without those thousands of pesky pages of analysis, and saved the taxpayers millions. Your report would read -

"THERE IS NO MEANS FOR THOSE BEAMS TO NOT READILY MELT BEYOND THEIR MEANS TO SUSTAIN THE MASS WHICH THEY WERE >EXCLUSIVELY< HOLDING."

You're a liar madam! …. plain and simple. My position has been since first post on the issue that the beams failed as a result of the fire causing the beams to melt, reducing their means to sustain the loads.

If you've truly come away with the inference that I have advocated otherwise then you're psychological state is sub-par and I suggest you find other avocations…




Did you see what NIST had to do in physical experiment to strip the fireproofing? And then barely so? There are actually some very good arguments that the fireproofing was not nearly stripped to the degree they assessed.

Spend some time in the crawl spaces of commercial structures and get back to me…


I do. I also understand that there is legitimate controversy over whether the extent was as claimed. These rely on arguments based in fluid mechanics, particulary the Reynolds number, and the possible trajectories of debris through the interior. A little over your head.
[sic]

Well of course… But then I only earn a living at this stuff… and have very little time playing a physicist on the internet. But I'm a quick study… so don't count me out yet.


Hell, the fireproofing was falling off on its own before the impacts. There are photos which prove this. But you know what?

ROFLMNAO! 180 degrees inside one breath?

Let's go to THE LAST STATEMENT ON THE ISSUE…
Did you see what NIST had to do in physical experiment to strip the fireproofing? And then barely so? There are actually some very good arguments that the fireproofing was not nearly stripped to the degree they assessed.

You're hammered… right? Now be honest.


There's ZERO proof of melted steel.

No? Are you still trying to play semantics with 'melt'? Because you're truly making a fool of yourself.


Common sense, but still a naked assertion. The fire of 1975, though hardly as widespread or intense, burned for several hours with no appreciable structural degradation. NIST says that the majority of fuel burned off in the fireballs, and the remaining amount was consumed well before collapse, leaving large but otherwise ordinary office fires (and impact damage, of course). The Beijing tower, admittedly radically different construction, was gutted by fire lasting five hours and stood. The longevity with intact fire protection is not so easily assumed.

Yeah… The "… while hardly as widespread and intense …" thing, is a biggy… meaning they were nowhere close to being comparable.

A regular office fire isn't exposed to, thus regular office fires are not fanned by, winds aloft… Nor are regular office fires the result of instant ignition over as many floors, neither are regular office structures dependent upon the structural integrity of so few joist moments. Ergo, the comparison of that circumstance to a regular office fire is the equivalent of comparing Ebola to the Rhinovirus… Sure, they're both viruses, but one is gonna kill you TODAY, while the other will just render ya behind the curve for a few days.
 
Last edited:
Is There Any Way To Cure The "Official Report" Believers

Do YOU get double time? Anyway, this is my shill beat. It's already covered.

Everyone, please! Scott is the only one here with his head screwed on straight. The PTB are very afraid of him. Pay no attention to what he says, okay?

So, it's the moon landing is faked, or the person is a shill??
 
Re: Is There Any Way To Cure The "Official Report" Believers

You Conspiracy Theorists might start by even attempting to present something resembling a prima facie case for any alternative hypothesis instead of just the same old endless JAQ'ing off.

That would be a start.

The fact that three steel framed buildings came down in a manner consistent with
Controlled Demolition rather than a result of chaotic damage.
the fact that the hit to the Pentagon as told by the MSM constitutes a violation of the laws of physics.
The fact that the official taxpayer funded report(s) on the subject are a white-wash job ....

Wow man, the emperor has such a fine new suit, don't you think so?

or?

A! bust the emperor for indecent exposure!
 
Re: Is There Any Way To Cure The "Official Report" Believers

The fact that three steel framed buildings came down in a manner consistent with
Controlled Demolition rather than a result of chaotic damage.
the fact that the hit to the Pentagon as told by the MSM constitutes a violation of the laws of physics.
The fact that the official taxpayer funded report(s) on the subject are a white-wash job ....

Wow man, the emperor has such a fine new suit, don't you think so?

or?

A! bust the emperor for indecent exposure!



ROFLMNAO!

Absolutely ADORABLE! Be a dear and explain for the board, how the Towers SHOULD have fallen, given the circumstances as they unfolded for the uninitiated…

Meaning, should the towers have toppled to the side? if so, why?

Should the towers have fallen up? Again, if so, why?

(Oh this should be FASCINATIN'!)
 
Re: Is There Any Way To Cure The "Official Report" Believers

Given the facts about the "collapse" events of all three buildings that were said
to have "collapsed" that day, its very obvious that something is VERY wrong here.
the Police send in investigators if there is so much as ONE structure that had been
completely and totally destroyed, but now THREE buildings are completely demolished,
and where is the investigation? tests for explosives ( etc .... ) what?

The event was a FRAUD, & the MSM is covering up .. big time!

Where is the investigation?

WTC Disaster Study
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/Towers Lost & Beyond.pdf
http://web.mit.edu/istgroup/ist/documents/EFCA2004_Istanbul04.pdf
http://eagar.mit.edu/EagarPapers/Eagar185supplement1.pdf
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/nr/2001/skyscrapers.pdf
http://eagar.mit.edu/EagarPresentations/WTC_TMS_2002.pdf
http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Nuclear-Engineering/22-00JSpring-2006/B66465A4-5D39-
WTC, 9/11/01
Scientists simulate jet colliding with World Trade Center - YouTube
http://www.jod911.com/WTC COLLAPSE STUDY BBlanchard 8-8-06.pdf
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/peer-reviewedpapersaboutthewtcimpacts,fi
WTCTragedy Investigation

And that is just a teaser. That you either don't comprehend this information or have not sought it out does not change the fact that 9/11 is the most investigated criminal act in all of human history. Just exactly how much more investigation do you think is required before you get it?
 
Re: Is There Any Way To Cure The "Official Report" Believers

Well tell me...
I've told you enough, and wasted quite enough time on this bull****. Apparently I've offended someone's delicate sensibilities (wonder who?) and just received another warning. I don't feel like throwing away time in an evironment where protecting dainty fragile egos is more important than scientific fact.

The rest of your drivel - ignored. Bye.
 
Re: Is There Any Way To Cure The "Official Report" Believers

The fact that three steel framed buildings came down in a manner consistent with
Controlled Demolition rather than a result of chaotic damage.
the fact that the hit to the Pentagon as told by the MSM constitutes a violation of the laws of physics.
The fact that the official taxpayer funded report(s) on the subject are a white-wash job ....

Wow man, the emperor has such a fine new suit, don't you think so?

or?

A! bust the emperor for indecent exposure!

Rubbish.

10 buildings were destroyed in New York that day. The only 3 you care about each collapsed in ways that don't even resemble each other, let alone a controlled demolition in any other way than they collapsed in the direction of gravity. Not only does it matter not one bit what some amatuer thinks they look like (as this is proof of nothing) but the ways in which they do not resemble a CD far outnumber the ways in which they do.

And would you care to demonstrate which laws of physics were violated in the Pentagon attack and show your math while doing it? I've asked you for this before but you always seem to dodge it.
 
Re: Is There Any Way To Cure The "Official Report" Believers

OOpsssss…

space ... the final frontier
that is the SPACE
between human ears ....





and the emperor is still NAKED!
 
Re: Is There Any Way To Cure The "Official Report" Believers

I've told you enough, and wasted quite enough time on this bull****. Apparently I've offended someone's delicate sensibilities (wonder who?) and just received another warning. I don't feel like throwing away time in an evironment where protecting dainty fragile egos is more important than scientific fact.

The rest of your drivel - ignored. Bye.

Very well…

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

The Reader should therefore see, that THAT is how THAT is done.

So when the occasional contributor comes along and asks: "Does anyone ever win any of these arguments?", please feel free to note this decided victory and lead them back over here to same…

It's been a HOOT!
 
Re: Is There Any Way To Cure The "Official Report" Believers

space ... The final frontier
that is the space
between human ears ....





And the emperor is still naked!

adorable!
 
Re: Is There Any Way To Cure The "Official Report" Believers

Rubbish.

10 buildings were destroyed in New York that day. The only 3 you care about each collapsed in ways that don't even resemble each other, let alone a controlled demolition in any other way than they collapsed in the direction of gravity. Not only does it matter not one bit what some amatuer thinks they look like (as this is proof of nothing) but the ways in which they do not resemble a CD far outnumber the ways in which they do.

And would you care to demonstrate which laws of physics were violated in the Pentagon attack and show your math while doing it? I've asked you for this before but you always seem to dodge it.

First of all, the MSM was the first to assert that a hijacked airliner crashed into the Pentagon,
and so far, they have NOT published any foundation to this assertion.
There are so many things wrong with the Pentagon hit,
note that NOBODY, ( much less a marginally trained amateur pilot ) could fly an airliner
full throttle at 20ft above the ground, NOT HAPPENING! also note the angle that he
alleged aircraft hit happened, you do realize that at an angle, a high velocity rifle bullet
will bounce off of a plate glass window... the alleged airliner hit produced a hole in the
wall and then the entire aircraft, or at least 99% of said aircraft entered the building
to be burnt up in a huge jet fuel fire. Note that the jet fuel explosion waited until
the aircraft tail had entered the building because if it had not, the tail of the aircraft
would still have been on the Pentagon lawn.

Note also that nothing more than pictures of a dumpster full of rubble
is given as prof that 95% of FLT93 had been accounted for.

The MSM story about hijacked airliners is a FRAUD!

WAKE UP PEOPLE!
 
Back
Top Bottom