Al Queda forming "white" terrorists.

[jay_a2j]

Why did you say "white"?

I didn't, I was quoting the article that you obviously didn't read.

[Snorri1234]

Why did you say "white"?

I didn't, I was quoting the article that you obviously didn't read.

I don't mean just white. You said white in quotation marks, making it look like you don't think they're really white.

[heavycola]

Does the phrase "Extensive damage" mean anything to you?

It was "pulled". With explosives, which would takes weeks to set up in order to bring it down. Can you say, "controlled demolition"? Can't be set up in less than a day. They have the firefighter on tape saying, "Pull building 7!". Wake up!

While 'pulled' can be used as slang for demolition by explosion, in this case it actually meant 'pulled'. The guy in charge thought building 7 was dangerously weakened by fire and ordered it pulled down with cables attached to hydraulci digger arms. 'Pulled'. .

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

In the video you posted, why do two guys refer to the building they are pulling as "building 6"? Now, for a moment, lets assume it was an inside job. Don't you think they will come up with explanations to answer all the "conspiracy theories"? Well yeah, they have to cover their bases. But I digress....

Inconclusive? How is this inconclusive? I have posted a link to a lot of evidence - transcripts, pictures - that show that WTC buildings 4, 5, 6 and 7 were pulled down using cables and hydraulic equipment. They were not demolished using explosives because of the perceived risk to the men who would have had to place those explosives. These buildings' structural integrity had been ccompromised by the collapse of the towers and HAD to come down.

You, on the other hand, have no evidence whatsoever, apart from audio of soemone saying they were going to 'pull' these buildings. Which is exactly what they did.
See, what really gets me about this is that for your theories to hold water, the fireman and fire chiefs would have had to be in on it too - and these are groups who lost a lot of their colleagues and friends that day.

But i'll wait for any evidence that building 7 came down as a result of a controlled explosion.

[jay_a2j]

Does the phrase "Extensive damage" mean anything to you?

It was "pulled". With explosives, which would takes weeks to set up in order to bring it down. Can you say, "controlled demolition"? Can't be set up in less than a day. They have the firefighter on tape saying, "Pull building 7!". Wake up!

While 'pulled' can be used as slang for demolition by explosion, in this case it actually meant 'pulled'. The guy in charge thought building 7 was dangerously weakened by fire and ordered it pulled down with cables attached to hydraulci digger arms. 'Pulled'. .

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

In the video you posted, why do two guys refer to the building they are pulling as "building 6"? Now, for a moment, lets assume it was an inside job. Don't you think they will come up with explanations to answer all the "conspiracy theories"? Well yeah, they have to cover their bases. But I digress....

Inconclusive? How is this inconclusive? I have posted a link to a lot of evidence - transcripts, pictures - that show that WTC buildings 4, 5, 6 and 7 were pulled down using cables and hydraulic equipment. They were not demolished using explosives because of the perceived risk to the men who would have had to place those explosives. These buildings' structural integrity had been ccompromised by the collapse of the towers and HAD to come down.

You, on the other hand, have no evidence whatsoever, apart from audio of soemone saying they were going to 'pull' these buildings. Which is exactly what they did.
See, what really gets me about this is that for your theories to hold water, the fireman and fire chiefs would have had to be in on it too - and these are groups who lost a lot of their colleagues and friends that day.

But i'll wait for any evidence that building 7 came down as a result of a controlled explosion.

and you conveniently skipped over my second question.



Both sides of the building 7 debate have their own set of "facts" each dismissing the other, therefore inconclusive. There are many police and firefighters that attest to the "conspiracy" side. So yeah, inconclusive.


This is my evidence

[heavycola]

Does the phrase "Extensive damage" mean anything to you?

It was "pulled". With explosives, which would takes weeks to set up in order to bring it down. Can you say, "controlled demolition"? Can't be set up in less than a day. They have the firefighter on tape saying, "Pull building 7!". Wake up!

While 'pulled' can be used as slang for demolition by explosion, in this case it actually meant 'pulled'. The guy in charge thought building 7 was dangerously weakened by fire and ordered it pulled down with cables attached to hydraulci digger arms. 'Pulled'. .

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

In the video you posted, why do two guys refer to the building they are pulling as "building 6"? Now, for a moment, lets assume it was an inside job. Don't you think they will come up with explanations to answer all the "conspiracy theories"? Well yeah, they have to cover their bases. But I digress....

Inconclusive? How is this inconclusive? I have posted a link to a lot of evidence - transcripts, pictures - that show that WTC buildings 4, 5, 6 and 7 were pulled down using cables and hydraulic equipment. They were not demolished using explosives because of the perceived risk to the men who would have had to place those explosives. These buildings' structural integrity had been ccompromised by the collapse of the towers and HAD to come down.

You, on the other hand, have no evidence whatsoever, apart from audio of soemone saying they were going to 'pull' these buildings. Which is exactly what they did.
See, what really gets me about this is that for your theories to hold water, the fireman and fire chiefs would have had to be in on it too - and these are groups who lost a lot of their colleagues and friends that day.

But i'll wait for any evidence that building 7 came down as a result of a controlled explosion.

and you conveniently skipped over my second question.

One at a time. George Bush lyign about what he saw on TV is not a conspiracy theory, but I can coem to that after I have finished with yoru first question.

Both sides of the building 7 debate have their own set of "facts" each dismissing the other, therefore inconclusive. There are many police and firefighters that attest to the "conspiracy" side. So yeah, inconclusive.

No, not inconclusive. You have been shown to be wrong.
Above, you stated the following:

"It was "pulled". With explosives, which would takes weeks to set up in order to bring it down. Can you say, "controlled demolition"? Can't be set up in less than a day. They have the firefighter on tape saying, "Pull building 7!". Wake up!"

And I have demonstrated why you are drawing wrong (not to mention scurrilous and offensive) conclusions from this 'evidence'. he said 'pull building 7' because that is exactly what they did.


I am at work, and don't have time to watch yotuube videos. But you can sumamrise its claims if you want.

[jay_a2j]

Does the phrase "Extensive damage" mean anything to you?

It was "pulled". With explosives, which would takes weeks to set up in order to bring it down. Can you say, "controlled demolition"? Can't be set up in less than a day. They have the firefighter on tape saying, "Pull building 7!". Wake up!

While 'pulled' can be used as slang for demolition by explosion, in this case it actually meant 'pulled'. The guy in charge thought building 7 was dangerously weakened by fire and ordered it pulled down with cables attached to hydraulci digger arms. 'Pulled'. .

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

In the video you posted, why do two guys refer to the building they are pulling as "building 6"? Now, for a moment, lets assume it was an inside job. Don't you think they will come up with explanations to answer all the "conspiracy theories"? Well yeah, they have to cover their bases. But I digress....

Inconclusive? How is this inconclusive? I have posted a link to a lot of evidence - transcripts, pictures - that show that WTC buildings 4, 5, 6 and 7 were pulled down using cables and hydraulic equipment. They were not demolished using explosives because of the perceived risk to the men who would have had to place those explosives. These buildings' structural integrity had been ccompromised by the collapse of the towers and HAD to come down.

You, on the other hand, have no evidence whatsoever, apart from audio of soemone saying they were going to 'pull' these buildings. Which is exactly what they did.
See, what really gets me about this is that for your theories to hold water, the fireman and fire chiefs would have had to be in on it too - and these are groups who lost a lot of their colleagues and friends that day.

But i'll wait for any evidence that building 7 came down as a result of a controlled explosion.

and you conveniently skipped over my second question.

One at a time. George Bush lyign about what he saw on TV is not a conspiracy theory, but I can coem to that after I have finished with yoru first question.

Both sides of the building 7 debate have their own set of "facts" each dismissing the other, therefore inconclusive. There are many police and firefighters that attest to the "conspiracy" side. So yeah, inconclusive.

No, not inconclusive. You have been shown to be wrong.
Above, you stated the following:

"It was "pulled". With explosives, which would takes weeks to set up in order to bring it down. Can you say, "controlled demolition"? Can't be set up in less than a day. They have the firefighter on tape saying, "Pull building 7!". Wake up!"

And I have demonstrated why you are drawing wrong (not to mention scurrilous and offensive) conclusions from this 'evidence'. he said 'pull building 7' because that is exactly what they did.


I am at work, and don't have time to watch yotuube videos. But you can sumamrise its claims if you want.

I have yet to see the cables used to pull building 7 as you say they did. From the video I see no cables, so I am just supposed to take your word for it I guess.

The video provides much needed optical evidence, it can not be summarized with words and maintain its credibility. When you get home perhaps you can find time to watch it.

[DaGip]

Does the phrase "Extensive damage" mean anything to you?

It was "pulled". With explosives, which would takes weeks to set up in order to bring it down. Can you say, "controlled demolition"? Can't be set up in less than a day. They have the firefighter on tape saying, "Pull building 7!". Wake up!

While 'pulled' can be used as slang for demolition by explosion, in this case it actually meant 'pulled'. The guy in charge thought building 7 was dangerously weakened by fire and ordered it pulled down with cables attached to hydraulci digger arms. 'Pulled'. .

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

In the video you posted, why do two guys refer to the building they are pulling as "building 6"? Now, for a moment, lets assume it was an inside job. Don't you think they will come up with explanations to answer all the "conspiracy theories"? Well yeah, they have to cover their bases. But I digress....


Try explaining this, why did George Bush lie about seeing the first plane hit on TV?


George Bush sees the first plane hit.


I would say the first question is inconclusive, fair enough? Lets see what you can do with this second question.

HC, this is from your debunking article:

Note the WTC columns laid out as if there were a path to the building. There are no concrete slabs attached to columns. This is yet another example of pancaking. With the floors pancaking straight down, the perimeter walls were free to lean over in tall sections before breaking off and coming down. That's what gave them distance.

and this is from the NIST (this is info that I have already posted in other threads):

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

There is also a hint that NIST will be introducing "blast event" hypothesis to explain that which they cannot. It seems to me that NIST is taking the government's story at full face value and bending their science around that.

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

And former NIST manager and chemist Kevin Ryan has other things to say about the investigation:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... &plindex=0

(Warning: 1hour vid...I know how much you guys like watching this stuff!)

[heavycola]

I have yet to see the cables used to pull building 7 as you say they did. From the video I see no cables, so I am just supposed to take your word for it I guess.

The video provides much needed optical evidence, it can not be summarized with words and maintain its credibility. When you get home perhaps you can find time to watch it.

My bad, i have been getting WTC 6 and WTC 7 mixed up...

Still, I am not as mixed up as your loony ideas. Building 6 was 'pulled' with cables; the order to 'pull' 7 came from a fireman, NOT a demolition expert who might have used 'pull' to denote explosives. The fire teams were ordered out of teh area - pulled from the scene - because it became apparent that WTC 7 was going to fall.

Here is a quote from an interview with Richard Banaciski, a fireman from Ladder 22:
'They told us to get out of there because they were
worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it,
coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon
building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom
corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over
to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up.
Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was
tremendous, tremendous fires going on.

Finally they pulled us out....'

(tyranscript from NY Times archive http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/ny ... ichard.txt)

And here is another transcript - from interview with NY fire department chief Daniel Nigro:

'The most important operational decision to be made that
afternoon was the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade
Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey
between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very
heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of
an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we
had to give up some rescue operations that were going on
at the time and back the people away far enough so that if
7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldn't lose any more
people.

We continued to operate on what we could from
that distance and approximately an hour and a half after
that order was giver., at 5:30 in the afternoon, World
Trade Center [7] collapsed completely...'

(http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/ny ... Daniel.txt)


Are these guys lying? Were the firemen and fire chiefs in on the scam? i woudl say this is pretty conclusive, jay. Especially Nigro's testimony - he saw the building was damaged enough to collapse and proceeded accordingly.

[Snorri1234]

Finally they pulled us out....'

See! They couldn't have pulled them without explosives! They blew up Richard Banaciski!

[jay_a2j]

My bad, i have been getting WTC 6 and WTC 7 mixed up...

Still, I am not as mixed up as your loony ideas. Building 6 was 'pulled' with cables; the order to 'pull' 7 came from a fireman, NOT a demolition expert who might have used 'pull' to denote explosives. The fire teams were ordered out of teh area - pulled from the scene - because it became apparent that WTC 7 was going to fall.

Here is a quote from an interview with Richard Banaciski, a fireman from Ladder 22:
'They told us to get out of there because they were
worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it,
coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon
building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom
corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over
to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up.
Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was
tremendous, tremendous fires going on.

Finally they pulled us out....'

(tyranscript from NY Times archive http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/ny ... ichard.txt)

The video addresses this. The firefighters had been ordered out of the building (7) at around 11am that morning. The building was pulled that evening. Building 7 was a steel building, yet another instace of defying physics! No steel building has ever collapsed do to fire and bldg. 7 was not directly hit by any plane. I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary of building 7 being "pulled". The video makes it clear that it was.

[heavycola]

My bad, i have been getting WTC 6 and WTC 7 mixed up...

Still, I am not as mixed up as your loony ideas. Building 6 was 'pulled' with cables; the order to 'pull' 7 came from a fireman, NOT a demolition expert who might have used 'pull' to denote explosives. The fire teams were ordered out of teh area - pulled from the scene - because it became apparent that WTC 7 was going to fall.

Here is a quote from an interview with Richard Banaciski, a fireman from Ladder 22:
'They told us to get out of there because they were
worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it,
coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon
building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom
corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over
to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up.
Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was
tremendous, tremendous fires going on.

Finally they pulled us out....'

(tyranscript from NY Times archive http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/ny ... ichard.txt)

The video addresses this. The firefighters had been ordered out of the building (7) at around 11am that morning. The building was pulled that evening. Building 7 was a steel building, yet another instace of defying physics! No steel building has ever collapsed do to fire and bldg. 7 was not directly hit by any plane. I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary of building 7 being "pulled". The video makes it clear that it was.

I am reposting the second transcript i added, from Fire Chief Daniel Nigro:

''The most important operational decision to be made that
afternoon was the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade
Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey
between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very
heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of
an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we
had to give up some rescue operations that were going on
at the time and back the people away far enough so that if
7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldn't lose any more
people.

'We continued to operate on what we could from
that distance and approximately an hour and a half after
that order was given, at 5:30 in the afternoon,World
Trade Center [7] collapsed completely...'

The fire chief thought it would collapse and ordered his men out of the area. He was proved right. Was he lying about his motivation?

[jay_a2j]

My bad, i have been getting WTC 6 and WTC 7 mixed up...

Still, I am not as mixed up as your loony ideas. Building 6 was 'pulled' with cables; the order to 'pull' 7 came from a fireman, NOT a demolition expert who might have used 'pull' to denote explosives. The fire teams were ordered out of teh area - pulled from the scene - because it became apparent that WTC 7 was going to fall.

Here is a quote from an interview with Richard Banaciski, a fireman from Ladder 22:
'They told us to get out of there because they were
worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it,
coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon
building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom
corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over
to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up.
Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was
tremendous, tremendous fires going on.

Finally they pulled us out....'

(tyranscript from NY Times archive http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/ny ... ichard.txt)

The video addresses this. The firefighters had been ordered out of the building (7) at around 11am that morning. The building was pulled that evening. Building 7 was a steel building, yet another instace of defying physics! No steel building has ever collapsed do to fire and bldg. 7 was not directly hit by any plane. I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary of building 7 being "pulled". The video makes it clear that it was.

I am reposting the second transcript i added, from Fire Chief Daniel Nigro:

''The most important operational decision to be made that
afternoon was the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade
Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey
between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very
heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of
an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we
had to give up some rescue operations that were going on
at the time and back the people away far enough so that if
7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldn't lose any more
people.

'We continued to operate on what we could from
that distance and approximately an hour and a half after
that order was given, at 5:30 in the afternoon,World
Trade Center [7] collapsed completely...'

The fire chief thought it would collapse and ordered his men out of the area. He was proved right. Was he lying about his motivation?

And I say, that IF 911 was an inside job, they are going to cover their bases. Pay people off to say things that aren't true etc. You have to take the collective evidence to draw a firm conclusion, because they can easily get people to say things or even people who were in on it all the time. OJ said he did not kill his ex-wife..... I guess that is fact too.

[Frigidus]

My bad, i have been getting WTC 6 and WTC 7 mixed up...

Still, I am not as mixed up as your loony ideas. Building 6 was 'pulled' with cables; the order to 'pull' 7 came from a fireman, NOT a demolition expert who might have used 'pull' to denote explosives. The fire teams were ordered out of teh area - pulled from the scene - because it became apparent that WTC 7 was going to fall.

Here is a quote from an interview with Richard Banaciski, a fireman from Ladder 22:
'They told us to get out of there because they were
worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it,
coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon
building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom
corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over
to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up.
Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was
tremendous, tremendous fires going on.

Finally they pulled us out....'

(tyranscript from NY Times archive http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/ny ... ichard.txt)

The video addresses this. The firefighters had been ordered out of the building (7) at around 11am that morning. The building was pulled that evening. Building 7 was a steel building, yet another instace of defying physics! No steel building has ever collapsed do to fire and bldg. 7 was not directly hit by any plane. I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary of building 7 being "pulled". The video makes it clear that it was.

I am reposting the second transcript i added, from Fire Chief Daniel Nigro:

''The most important operational decision to be made that
afternoon was the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade
Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey
between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very
heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of
an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we
had to give up some rescue operations that were going on
at the time and back the people away far enough so that if
7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldn't lose any more
people.

'We continued to operate on what we could from
that distance and approximately an hour and a half after
that order was given, at 5:30 in the afternoon,World
Trade Center [7] collapsed completely...'

The fire chief thought it would collapse and ordered his men out of the area. He was proved right. Was he lying about his motivation?

And I say, that IF 911 was an inside job, they are going to cover their bases. Pay people off to say things that aren't true etc. You have to take the collective evidence to draw a firm conclusion, because they can easily get people to say things or even people who were in on it all the time. OJ said he did not kill his ex-wife..... I guess that is fact too.

You can discount absolutely any story, government or otherwise that way. Where do you draw the line?

[Nickbaldwin]

White terrorists existed before we even knew what Al-Qaeda was.

[DaGip]

White terrorists existed before we even knew what Al-Qaeda was.

Like Columbus!

[muy_thaiguy]

White terrorists existed before we even knew what Al-Qaeda was.

Like Columbus!

Not quite, it was actually some King of either France or England that actually began the terrorism thing. Though not many have done it as a leader of a country since (the Tsars, and Stalin and Lenin being the exceptions to this, and possibly others).

[Dancing Mustard]

After reading this thread in its entirety and after carefully weighing up the arguments on both sides, I am able to declare the following:

Jay is completely wrong about everything he has said here.




This debate is now over, return to your respective abodes.

[suggs]

Its good to know the terrorists/freedom fighters are more tolerant and accepting of other cultures than Jay.

[heavycola]

The fire chief thought it would collapse and ordered his men out of the area. He was proved right. Was he lying about his motivation?

And I say, that IF 911 was an inside job, they are going to cover their bases. Pay people off to say things that aren't true etc. You have to take the collective evidence to draw a firm conclusion, because they can easily get people to say things or even people who were in on it all the time. OJ said he did not kill his ex-wife..... I guess that is fact too.

What? What has OJ Simpson got to do with anything?

The reason this sits so badly with people is because you are accusing these firefighters - men who saved lives that day (by, for instance, clearing the area around WTC 7 before it fell) and who lost countless friends and colleagues - of being lying scumbags who were bought off. And based on what - on some crappy videos you saw on youtube and, apparently, on the correlation between the testimony of OJ Simpson in his own murder trial, and the testimony of these men who worked and suffered for others through what was probably the worst day in their lives.

This sucks, jay.
There is no mystery here, much as you want there to be one. There is only what happened, as recounted by these professionals who were actually there.

[Gregrios]

After reading this thread in its entirety and after carefully weighing up the arguments on both sides, I am able to declare the following:

Jay is completely wrong about everything he has said here.




This debate is now over, return to your respective abodes.

Narrowed minded types like yourself is the reason why the government has been so successful in covering up the "TRUTH".

First, the government was led to beleive by a certain individual by the nickname, "Curveball" that Iraq had nuclear capablities. Which was WRONG!

Second, Bush strikes at our freedom by conducting illegal wire taps. Yet NO ONE does anything about it. Hmm.

What else does the government have to do to make you realize their against us and not with us.

Maybe when they take our freedom of speach, you'll wake up.

Of course, it is easier to live an absolutely ignorant life then it is to face the facts that your very freedom is coming to an end.

[heavycola]

After reading this thread in its entirety and after carefully weighing up the arguments on both sides, I am able to declare the following:

Jay is completely wrong about everything he has said here.




This debate is now over, return to your respective abodes.

Narrowed minded types like yourself is the reason why the government has been so successful in covering up the "TRUTH".

First, the government was led to beleive by a certain individual by the nickname, "Curveball" that Iraq had nuclear capablities. Which was WRONG!

Second, Bush strikes at our freedom by conducting illegal wire taps. Yet NO ONE does anything about it. Hmm.

What else does the government have to do to make you realize their against us and not with us.

Maybe when they take our freedom of speach, you'll wake up.

Of course, it is easier to live an absolutely ignorant life then it is to face the facts that your very freedom is coming to an end.

Go away.

[Gregrios]

After reading this thread in its entirety and after carefully weighing up the arguments on both sides, I am able to declare the following:

Jay is completely wrong about everything he has said here.




This debate is now over, return to your respective abodes.

Narrowed minded types like yourself is the reason why the government has been so successful in covering up the "TRUTH".

First, the government was led to beleive by a certain individual by the nickname, "Curveball" that Iraq had nuclear capablities. Which was WRONG!

Second, Bush strikes at our freedom by conducting illegal wire taps. Yet NO ONE does anything about it. Hmm.

What else does the government have to do to make you realize their against us and not with us.

Maybe when they take our freedom of speach, you'll wake up.

Of course, it is easier to live an absolutely ignorant life then it is to face the facts that your very freedom is coming to an end.

Go away.

Yeah, that's gonna happen.

[Dancing Mustard]

Narrowed minded types like yourself is the reason why the government has been so successful in covering up the "TRUTH".
First, the government was led to beleive by a certain individual by the nickname, "Curveball" that Iraq had nuclear capablities. Which was WRONG!
Second, Bush strikes at our freedom by conducting illegal wire taps. Yet NO ONE does anything about it. Hmm.
What else does the government have to do to make you realize their against us and not with us.
Maybe when they take our freedom of speach, you'll wake up.
Of course, it is easier to live an absolutely ignorant life then it is to face the facts that your very freedom is coming to an end.

Lollercaust

The 'Tard-Baiter' strikes again!

[Nickbaldwin]

White terrorists existed before we even knew what Al-Qaeda was.

Like Columbus!

Exactly. I bet you could name a dozen more aswell.

[Iliad]

After reading this thread in its entirety and after carefully weighing up the arguments on both sides, I am able to declare the following:

Jay is completely wrong about everything he has said here.




This debate is now over, return to your respective abodes.

Narrowed minded types like yourself is the reason why the government has been so successful in covering up the "TRUTH".

First, the government was led to beleive by a certain individual by the nickname, "Curveball" that Iraq had nuclear capablities. Which was WRONG!

Second, Bush strikes at our freedom by conducting illegal wire taps. Yet NO ONE does anything about it. Hmm.

What else does the government have to do to make you realize their against us and not with us.

Maybe when they take our freedom of speach, you'll wake up.

Of course, it is easier to live an absolutely ignorant life then it is to face the facts that your very freedom is coming to an end.

why are all the conspiracy theorists also the REALLY perverse Christians?