THERE ARE NO 9/11 CONSPIRACIES YOU FOOLS!

An open section to speak about anything on your mind from News, politics, Conspiracy Theories, and any random street or urban event.
BlaKK
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 5533
Joined: December 7th, 2003, 2:17 pm
Location: s/s riverside
Contact:

Unread post by BlaKK » September 19th, 2006, 3:26 pm

Useless... American M1A2 Tanks are far more advanced than German, or Russian Tanks, and I'm not even going to mention China when It comes to Tank war fare, They are not even worthy. M1A2 Main battle tanks have the supreme advantage of shooting on the go, with 100% accuracy through a turret stabilization system, Russian tanks would be blown the fuck up from afar...


Russia has the most advanced fighter jet in the world? What the Mig? Come on Useless, Migs are not even equipped with Fly-By-Wire, Fly by wire gives any pilot a supreme advantage, which is why America has complete Air superiority... Americas Air Force is decades ahead of its closest competitor, in this case it would be Europe... I believe it is called the Mirage... An F-16 lookin Fighter jet.


China's only has 60-70 nukes in there entire Nuclear arsenal, only half of them are strategic, and there low yield nukes, One trident or Texas Class submarine can hold more nuclear yield than all of China. Israel has more nukes than China.

But I still stand by what I said in recent posts, if Russia and or China declared war on the United states Not one conventional bomb would be dropped... Strictly Nukes. Mutuall Assured Destruction... (M.A.D.)

BlaKK
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 5533
Joined: December 7th, 2003, 2:17 pm
Location: s/s riverside
Contact:

Unread post by BlaKK » September 19th, 2006, 3:31 pm

The first wing of F-22 Raptors Were just commissioned Useless... And the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is only months away... With the production of the F-22, Puts the United States Air Force 30 to 40 years ahead of its closest competitor... By the means of Technology and innovation.

Mcminister
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2900
Joined: July 4th, 2006, 4:15 pm
Location: Africa
Contact:

Unread post by Mcminister » September 19th, 2006, 4:18 pm

damn nigga WTF was ur GPA wen u graduated ^^^^

BlaKK
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 5533
Joined: December 7th, 2003, 2:17 pm
Location: s/s riverside
Contact:

Unread post by BlaKK » September 19th, 2006, 4:20 pm

3.87

BlaKK
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 5533
Joined: December 7th, 2003, 2:17 pm
Location: s/s riverside
Contact:

Unread post by BlaKK » September 19th, 2006, 4:22 pm

It would have been a 4.0... If I didn't ditch, and smoke so many blunts.

Mcminister
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2900
Joined: July 4th, 2006, 4:15 pm
Location: Africa
Contact:

Unread post by Mcminister » September 19th, 2006, 4:30 pm

damn dats some real shit
i was aimin at 3.0 if they didnt kick me out
F'in crackers

BlaKK
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 5533
Joined: December 7th, 2003, 2:17 pm
Location: s/s riverside
Contact:

Unread post by BlaKK » September 19th, 2006, 4:32 pm

What they kick you out for? You droppin niggas to sleep? What grade you in nigga? and some dude asked you in another thread what city or country you in, I thought you was in S. Africa? Or are you over here with the Western Imperialists?

User avatar
creativemind
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 639
Joined: April 26th, 2006, 8:54 pm
Location: Culver City
Contact:

Unread post by creativemind » September 19th, 2006, 6:41 pm

Sentenza wrote:
BlaKK wrote:Gravity pulled the building down because the heat from the towers was in excess of 1500 degrees, at that temperature steal will give... Regardless how much retardant is applied. In effect the gravity coupled with a crippled foundation, lead to the collapse of the Trade Towers. There are no conspiracies behind the fall...

Whats funny is there has never been a collapse of two towers so large in human history, yet conspiracy theorists manipulate what they know not, and try to make that become truth... And the stupid usually give in and fallow.
True, i was just wondering about the way it collapsed. Straight like a planned demolition. A fuckin miracle.....but possible.
I'm from Philly. Back in the early 90's it was a hi-rise office building right across the street from City Hall called Girard Bank Plaza that caught on fire and burned for 19 hours before they brought it under control. That shit never caused the building to drop.

The towers were imploded from within, and in several different places. The way that they fell was too uniform for it to be caused by a random explosion.

BlaKK
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 5533
Joined: December 7th, 2003, 2:17 pm
Location: s/s riverside
Contact:

Unread post by BlaKK » September 19th, 2006, 6:50 pm

Kerosene is what brings steel to those extreme temperatures, causing the steel, the foundation, to give. If the Twin Towers were simply on fire, they would have stood for weeks on end until they toppled. The Trade centers were so hot due to the Kerosene from the Fuel tanks that the wreckage and rubble stayed at fire hazardous temperatures for months.

User avatar
creativemind
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 639
Joined: April 26th, 2006, 8:54 pm
Location: Culver City
Contact:

Unread post by creativemind » September 19th, 2006, 6:59 pm

BlaKK wrote:Kerosene is what brings steel to those extreme temperatures, causing the steel, the foundation, to give. If the Twin Towers were simply on fire, they would have stood for weeks on end until they toppled. The Trade centers were so hot due to the Kerosene from the Fuel tanks that the wreckage and rubble stayed at fire hazardous temperatures for months.
I agree that kerosene definitely was a contributing factor, but let me ask you this. If that was the only reason, as opposed to some type of implosion, why didn't the building fall in sections? One side first, then the other?

And think about this, people use kerosene when they BBQ. Do you think a fire on a grill with kerosene, would get hot enough to MELT the grill in less than an hour?

Those buildings were steel reinforced and came down in less than 1 hour.

EmperorPenguin
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1155
Joined: February 21st, 2006, 3:01 am

Unread post by EmperorPenguin » September 20th, 2006, 9:29 am

creativemind wrote:
Sentenza wrote:
BlaKK wrote:Gravity pulled the building down because the heat from the towers was in excess of 1500 degrees, at that temperature steal will give... Regardless how much retardant is applied. In effect the gravity coupled with a crippled foundation, lead to the collapse of the Trade Towers. There are no conspiracies behind the fall...

Whats funny is there has never been a collapse of two towers so large in human history, yet conspiracy theorists manipulate what they know not, and try to make that become truth... And the stupid usually give in and fallow.
True, i was just wondering about the way it collapsed. Straight like a planned demolition. A fuckin miracle.....but possible.
I'm from Philly. Back in the early 90's it was a hi-rise office building right across the street from City Hall called Girard Bank Plaza that caught on fire and burned for 19 hours before they brought it under control. That shit never caused the building to drop.

The towers were imploded from within, and in several different places. The way that they fell was too uniform for it to be caused by a random explosion.
I'm glad you compare a building you saw burning, verses the worlds tallest building being hit by a jetliner. They're basically equal.... :roll:
You have to understand that the WTC was hit by an airplane full of fuel. Nothing on this scale has happened before so you can't even compare. You can't even imagine what would have happened. The sheer heat and weight of the building is enough to bring the building down. It's not rocket science.

Dregsta
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 278
Joined: May 23rd, 2006, 10:43 pm

Unread post by Dregsta » September 20th, 2006, 11:55 am

apparently those building where strong enought to sustain a airplane crash.I mean when u build a tall building like that its something to consider.

EmperorPenguin
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1155
Joined: February 21st, 2006, 3:01 am

Unread post by EmperorPenguin » September 20th, 2006, 12:00 pm

Dregsta wrote:apparently those building where strong enought to sustain a airplane crash.I mean when u build a tall building like that its something to consider.
I think how the American goverment acted before and after 9/11 has proven that they never considered something like this to happen. It seems to be the goverments policy to under-estimate their enemies. Though I do believe the goverment knew something was coming, I don't think they knew the scale in which it was going to happen.

As for the building engineers to have thought of that before hand, I believe they had thought of a plane hitting it and had built the WTC with that in mind, but I don't think they had a passage jet full of fuel in mind, at least I think that's what I've heard.

User avatar
creativemind
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 639
Joined: April 26th, 2006, 8:54 pm
Location: Culver City
Contact:

Unread post by creativemind » September 20th, 2006, 3:55 pm

EmperorPenguin wrote:
creativemind wrote:
Sentenza wrote:
BlaKK wrote:Gravity pulled the building down because the heat from the towers was in excess of 1500 degrees, at that temperature steal will give... Regardless how much retardant is applied. In effect the gravity coupled with a crippled foundation, lead to the collapse of the Trade Towers. There are no conspiracies behind the fall...

Whats funny is there has never been a collapse of two towers so large in human history, yet conspiracy theorists manipulate what they know not, and try to make that become truth... And the stupid usually give in and fallow.
True, i was just wondering about the way it collapsed. Straight like a planned demolition. A fuckin miracle.....but possible.

Alright Penguin, :roll: it looks like you're more interested in being sarcastic than realistic, but I'll humor you. Read a little about the matter, educate yourself, and then maybe we'll have a sensible debate. Aiiight!!!

http://whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_fire.htm


I'm from Philly. Back in the early 90's it was a hi-rise office building right across the street from City Hall called Girard Bank Plaza that caught on fire and burned for 19 hours before they brought it under control. That shit never caused the building to drop.

The towers were imploded from within, and in several different places. The way that they fell was too uniform for it to be caused by a random explosion.
I'm glad you compare a building you saw burning, verses the worlds tallest building being hit by a jetliner. They're basically equal.... :roll:
You have to understand that the WTC was hit by an airplane full of fuel. Nothing on this scale has happened before so you can't even compare. You can't even imagine what would have happened. The sheer heat and weight of the building is enough to bring the building down. It's not rocket science.

User avatar
creativemind
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 639
Joined: April 26th, 2006, 8:54 pm
Location: Culver City
Contact:

Unread post by creativemind » September 20th, 2006, 3:55 pm

Alright Penguin, :roll: it looks like you're more interested in being sarcastic than realistic, but I'll humor you. Read a little about the matter, educate yourself, and then maybe we'll have a sensible debate. Aiiight!!!

User avatar
creativemind
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 639
Joined: April 26th, 2006, 8:54 pm
Location: Culver City
Contact:

Unread post by creativemind » September 20th, 2006, 3:57 pm


User avatar
creativemind
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 639
Joined: April 26th, 2006, 8:54 pm
Location: Culver City
Contact:

Unread post by creativemind » September 20th, 2006, 3:59 pm


EmperorPenguin
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1155
Joined: February 21st, 2006, 3:01 am

Unread post by EmperorPenguin » September 20th, 2006, 4:11 pm

creativemind wrote:Alright Penguin, :roll: it looks like you're more interested in being sarcastic than realistic, but I'll humor you. Read a little about the matter, educate yourself, and then maybe we'll have a sensible debate. Aiiight!!!
Realistic? A webpage named whatreallyhappened.com doesn't pass as factual based just because of it's name. It's no more truth then anything else out there. It's all this "I heard, I think, I'm pretty sure I saw, I overheard someone saying..." stuff that every other page is posting. No one is coming out with cold hard facts to dispute anything other then what we know. 2 Planes hit the WTC, caught a portion of the building on fire, and the 2 towers collapsed. Occam's razor comes into play for now until something better can be proven, which it hasn't been.

You keep missing the obvious when it comes to this whole fire-heat-melting deal. The fire didn't have to get hot enough to start melting all the metal in site. It just had to get hot enough and weaken enough of the structure for gravity to kick in. Something that large, and heavy and tall has an enormous amount of pressure on it at any given time. It WANTS to fall. It takes just enough to weaken the structure for something to give, then a domino effect kicks in with a WHOLE lotta help from gravity and the house of cards comes down. It's really not that hard of a concept to get.

User avatar
creativemind
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 639
Joined: April 26th, 2006, 8:54 pm
Location: Culver City
Contact:

Unread post by creativemind » September 20th, 2006, 9:48 pm

If you look at the pictures in the bottom link, you will see two buildings that look a helluva lot worse than either tower looked when they collapsed. The Venezuela fire burned 17 hours and DIDN'T collapse. The Spain fire burned over 20 HOURS and didn't collapse.

And you believe that the Twin Towers, which were structurally superior to either one of them, feel like it was made out of plastic in 56 minutes and 85 minutes?

Please tell me that you don't believe that nonsense. I guess you believe that Iraq just had some really well hidden WMDs too, huh?

User avatar
Christina Marie
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9305
Joined: August 11th, 2005, 4:58 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: Pennsylvania
What city do you live in now?: From LB to PA
Location: CA

Unread post by Christina Marie » September 20th, 2006, 11:20 pm

creativemind wrote:If you look at the pictures in the bottom link, you will see two buildings that look a helluva lot worse than either tower looked when they collapsed. The Venezuela fire burned 17 hours and DIDN'T collapse. The Spain fire burned over 20 HOURS and didn't collapse.

But the towers were severely structurally damaged by the airplanes. It was'nt the fire that brought them down in and of itself. It was that the sructural integrity was compromised initially.

And you believe that the Twin Towers, which were structurally superior to either one of them, feel like it was made out of plastic in 56 minutes and 85 minutes?

Please tell me that you don't believe that nonsense. I guess you believe that Iraq just had some really well hidden WMDs too, huh?

Cold Bear
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2079
Joined: March 18th, 2004, 12:22 pm
What city do you live in now?: New York City
Location: L.A. to Brooklyn, NY

Unread post by Cold Bear » September 21st, 2006, 6:47 am

Not to knock any of you folks man yall could be right, but there have been numerous scientists who cite the laws of physics and chemistry (as with the scientist who claims thermite was probably used), who have given facts of science that do not align with the occurences at the WTC. I see a lot of dudes on here (who are not scientists) using some funny logic or talking about "the building wants to fall" or "there has never been anything like it". Still none of you can possibly ever explain WTC 7 (the third building). Come on, ferocious dust from collapsing towers brought down a building more than a block away. What kind of shit? If you claim they DID pull WTC7 (you can't claim otherwise), why did the two towers fall in the exact same fashion. Shits were in a goddamn freefall.

EmperorPenguin
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1155
Joined: February 21st, 2006, 3:01 am

Unread post by EmperorPenguin » September 21st, 2006, 9:05 am

Apples and Oranges. You keep comparing the WTC to this or that. I said from the start, this is a building that was destroyed in a fashion like no other on record. Given it's size and weight and how it was attacked you can't compare it to anything, period. You can crunch numbers and rack your brains all you want but it's all theoritcal at best.

EmperorPenguin
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1155
Joined: February 21st, 2006, 3:01 am

Unread post by EmperorPenguin » September 21st, 2006, 9:48 am

I won't even claim to have read that whole page posted, but even just browsing I came across one of many silly "facts" being passed off.

This observation along with the above indicates two things:
There was little fire in WTC 2 prior to its collapse.
The black ash from WTC 1 indicates the presence of large amounts of soot. Soot is a byproduct of inefficient combustion, therefore the fires in WTC 1 did not burn at extreme temperatures


First, no one knows exactly how much fire was present. Those that were anywhere near the fire died, anyone else is guessing based on any number of things. Secondly, yes soot is a byproduct of combustion, and burns as black smoke but that's not the ONLY thing that burns as black smoke. So to assume that A: It was soot that caused the black smoke (soot is usually built up over time, so unless the walls were caked in it, I don't see it being soot) and then B: The fire couldn't possibly have burned at extreme temperatures because of it being ONLY SOOT is guessing at best. This guy is just full of assumptions and then passes them off as facts and people are eating it up. Which seems to be the norm for these types of pages.

If you want to believe this or that, that's totally fine. I'm sticking to what we REALLY know at this point. Buildings were hit, buildings caught fire, buildings fell. Until more proof is given (PROOF will be hard to come by with no evidence left to go over other then tapes and eyewitnesses which are subject to interpetation and mistakes), I'm reserving judgement on a conspiracy.

User avatar
creativemind
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 639
Joined: April 26th, 2006, 8:54 pm
Location: Culver City
Contact:

Unread post by creativemind » September 21st, 2006, 10:31 am

Cold Bear wrote:Not to knock any of you folks man yall could be right, but there have been numerous scientists who cite the laws of physics and chemistry (as with the scientist who claims thermite was probably used), who have given facts of science that do not align with the occurences at the WTC. I see a lot of dudes on here (who are not scientists) using some funny logic or talking about "the building wants to fall" or "there has never been anything like it". Still none of you can possibly ever explain WTC 7 (the third building). Come on, ferocious dust from collapsing towers brought down a building more than a block away. What kind of shit? If you claim they DID pull WTC7 (you can't claim otherwise), why did the two towers fall in the exact same fashion. Shits were in a goddamn freefall.
Cold Bear you're right about WTC 7. If feel despite the fact that no plane hit it because it too, was felled by a planned demolition from within. There is no other explanation. Like you said, all the dust in the world wasn't gonna blow it STRAIGHT DOWN.

Cold Bear
Heavy Weight
Heavy Weight
Posts: 2079
Joined: March 18th, 2004, 12:22 pm
What city do you live in now?: New York City
Location: L.A. to Brooklyn, NY

Unread post by Cold Bear » September 21st, 2006, 11:02 am

I don't know creativemind I mean that was a FEROCIOUS blast of dust! Lol
EmperorPenguin wrote:Apples and Oranges. You keep comparing the WTC to this or that. I said from the start, this is a building that was destroyed in a fashion like no other on record. Given it's size and weight and how it was attacked you can't compare it to anything, period. You can crunch numbers and rack your brains all you want but it's all theoritcal at best.
Number one science is not 'theoretical'. "the building WANTS TO FALL" is theoretical. "This has never happened before so how can we know it must be just like they say it" is theoretical.

And apple and oranges my ass dogs. Because it's the same thing. They fell on the same day, four hours apart. It's not two different things completely not connected! WTF? I was in New York on that day and nobody talked about the WTC7 falling until like the next day, news didn't really mention it too tough, no big buzz, people were to focused on the towers... The first question everybody asked was "Why the fuck did it fall if nothing touched it?" If you admit that WTC 7was a controlled demolition then how are you comparing apples and oranges when all three buildings fell the same way? Oh, maybe the towers were hit, and they were like fuck it let's just bring the other building down too for kicks, went up in there and planted the explosives in perfect locations, and executed a demolition before going home for the day. Come on how does that sound though?

EmperorPenguin
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1155
Joined: February 21st, 2006, 3:01 am

Unread post by EmperorPenguin » September 21st, 2006, 11:56 am

Cold Bear wrote:I don't know creativemind I mean that was a FEROCIOUS blast of dust! Lol
EmperorPenguin wrote:Apples and Oranges. You keep comparing the WTC to this or that. I said from the start, this is a building that was destroyed in a fashion like no other on record. Given it's size and weight and how it was attacked you can't compare it to anything, period. You can crunch numbers and rack your brains all you want but it's all theoritcal at best.
Number one science is not 'theoretical'. "the building WANTS TO FALL" is theoretical. "This has never happened before so how can we know it must be just like they say it" is theoretical.

And apple and oranges my ass dogs. Because it's the same thing. They fell on the same day, four hours apart. It's not two different things completely not connected! WTF? I was in New York on that day and nobody talked about the WTC7 falling until like the next day, news didn't really mention it too tough, no big buzz, people were to focused on the towers... The first question everybody asked was "Why the fu-- did it fall if nothing touched it?" If you admit that WTC 7was a controlled demolition then how are you comparing apples and oranges when all three buildings fell the same way? Oh, maybe the towers were hit, and they were like fu-- it let's just bring the other building down too for kicks, went up in there and planted the explosives in perfect locations, and executed a demolition before going home for the day. Come on how does that sound though?
Last time I checked, a building of this height was never hit by a plane before, let alone 2 buildings in the same day being hit by a terrorist attack. That's a fact, not a theory. Last time I checked gravity wasn't a theory. Anything that's standing up, going against gravity wants to fall. We're all going against it every day. Unless we exert some form of energy to keep ourselves stable and upright, we will fall. Likes wise everything else in the world. Stationary structures are at a constant battle with gravity, this isn't breaking news. Science for the most part is fact, bringing in scientific facts to try to fill in voids that can't be proven at this point in time is a theory.

You're still comparing WTC7 to WTC1 & 2. 1&2 can be compared relatively equally. Both were the same height, build, make-up and both hit by planes, though not in the same fashion. WTC7 was not the same height, build, make-up OR hit by a plane. THAT'S where the apples and oranges come into play. I don't claim to know why WTC7 fell, nor have I ever made such a claim. But some people are trying to compare them all to each other. Yes, circumstances surrounding the buildings falling comes into question, but no one has a definate answer, especially enough to be spouting off about bombs, and explosions and demolitions. Those are all theories that at this point can't be proven. There's a lot of questions surrounding that day, not just the buildings falling. I'm just stating what we DO know, which obviously isn't very much.

All these webpages have their THEORIES as to what happened, but they are just that. Call them "facts" if you want, call them "truth" or scream "conspiracy" but at the end of the day you know no more about what REALLY happened that day then anyone else, myself included. That's all I'm getting at. I'm not saying what these people are posting might not be the truth, I'm just saying what they're trying to pass off as "facts" are paper thin at most times.

EmperorPenguin
Light Heavy Weight
Light Heavy Weight
Posts: 1155
Joined: February 21st, 2006, 3:01 am

Unread post by EmperorPenguin » September 21st, 2006, 12:04 pm

I think my Apples and Oranges may have confused others as well. I'm not saying 1&2 can't be compared. I'm claiming you can't compare what happened to 1&2 and the fashion in which they were brought down to ANYTHING else in the world. Any scientist will tell you if you're trying to perform an expirement to gain results, you have to have a controlled constant. How can we assume what happened to 1&2 will be the same as what happened to a burning building in Spain, or Philly, or anywhere else for that matter? They're all so different from one another and WTC1&2 are unlike any other building. We can assume what might happen given what happened in the past, or what mathmatic equations might tell us but it's all just a theory. Is anyone disputing that, or am I seriously missing something?

UmanH-ay

Unread post by UmanH-ay » September 30th, 2006, 12:44 am

Thanks for the info blakk and others...

Dregsta
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 278
Joined: May 23rd, 2006, 10:43 pm

Unread post by Dregsta » September 30th, 2006, 12:38 pm

Bombs or no bombs,theres a cover-up.The goverment knows something that we dont know or are trying to keep it away from us.If u believe 80% of what the goverment whether its democrate or repuplican says than your no different than german citizens that lived in 1934 and ur just a little pathetic puppet whit strings attached.

U dont have to look at the sept 11 attacks to start scratching ur head and start asking serious questions.Look at the war on drugs,there are more drugs flowing in than ever before and drug offences is one the major offences in america.Prohobitions creates organise crime whit people running the shit like Al Capone , Pablo Escobar and countless others and witch gov funds the DEA to fight a virtual war that only becomes reality on the evening news.Its nothing but perception.

Back to sept 11,its nothing but a excuse for american expansionism.Bringing down buildings is fukcing cheap.Some would nod theres heads whit disbelieve saying"There was some conspiracy's carried out in 9/11 for surely, However I highly doubt the United States Government blew up its own financial institution... That is just ludicrous.'
Lol i gotta laught at that cause the military industrual complex IS THE WORLD TRADE CENTER!

DeaD-SouL
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 297
Joined: May 30th, 2004, 8:07 pm
Location: The Underworld

Unread post by DeaD-SouL » September 30th, 2006, 2:29 pm

don't forget that 70% of the cocaine was distributed by the CIA,
and that the CIA uses drug money to pay a lot of their projects

BlaKK
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 5533
Joined: December 7th, 2003, 2:17 pm
Location: s/s riverside
Contact:

Unread post by BlaKK » September 30th, 2006, 2:30 pm

Its those with wealth... Ever since the Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913 it allowed few individuals such as the Rockefeller's to acquire UNLIMITED WEALTH, thus unlimited power.

its nothing but a excuse for american expansionism
ABSOLUTE TRUTH... The American Imperium.

BlaKK
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 5533
Joined: December 7th, 2003, 2:17 pm
Location: s/s riverside
Contact:

Unread post by BlaKK » September 30th, 2006, 2:33 pm

the military industrual complex IS THE WORLD TRADE CENTER!

Why do say such? How so? Analyse.

Post Reply

Return to “Open Section for Other Random Topics & Controverisal issues”