WTC Towers were designed to survive Hotter and Longer Burning Fires then those they "collapsed" from on 9/11

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from freedom2fascism. Show freedom2fascism's posts

    WTC Towers were designed to survive Hotter and Longer Burning Fires then those they "collapsed" from on 9/11

    WTC Towers were designed to survive Hotter and Longer Burning Fires then those they "collapsed" from on 9/11

    How do I know this?

    Simple - The North Tower previously survived a multi-floor "Blowtorch" fire that burned so hot windows were destroyed from the heat, and unlike on 9/11 this fire lasted for over three hours - without collapsing.

    So... Let's recap.

    We already knew the Towers were designed to survive a direct crash by a 707, because they did, standing for up to an hour after the impacts.

    And now we know they were designed to survive a hotter and longer burning fire than the one NIST claims felled them, because one already had. (3 times as long!)

    So it wasn't the crash, and it wasn't the fire... hmmmmmm - wonder what it could have been?

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from freedom2fascism. Show freedom2fascism's posts

    Re: WTC Towers were designed to survive Hotter and Longer Burning Fires then those they "collapsed" from on 9/11

    And by the way, the fire I speak of was not the 1993 bombing of WTC1. That's a whole different can of worms.

    No, it was the almost forgotten WTC1 blazing inferno in 1975

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rushfan2112. Show Rushfan2112's posts

    Re: WTC Towers were designed to survive Hotter and Longer Burning Fires then those they "collapsed" from on 9/11

    In Response to WTC Towers were designed to survive Hotter and Longer Burning Fires then those they "collapsed" from on 9/11:
    WTC Towers were designed to survive Hotter and Longer Burning Fires then those they "collapsed" from on 9/11 How do I know this? Simple - The North Tower previously survived a multi-floor "Blowtorch" fire that burned so hot windows were destroyed from the heat, and unlike on 9/11 this fire lasted for over three hours - without collapsing . So... Let's recap. We already knew the Towers were designed to survive a direct crash by a 707, because they did, standing for up to an hour after the impacts. And now we know they were designed to survive a hotter and longer burning fire than the one NIST claims felled them, because one already had. (3 times as long!) So it wasn't the crash, and it wasn't the fire... hmmmmmm - wonder what it could have been?  
    Posted by freedom2fascism


    Hey supertrucker why don't you ever stay on one thread?  Instead you just do what you always do and run of to start another.

    You clearly haven't the slightest clue of accident investigation and you don't want to know.  If you did, and I'm sure you can google this and cut and paste into your response, then you would have some idea that a single event is rarely the sole causal factor in an accident.  Rather it's a number of contributing factors that lead to the event.

    You want to believe that (1) Fire or (2) The planes were the sole causal factor in the collaspes. 

    Since the buildings didn't collapse immediately, you dismiss the plane crash as having a role.  Thus you turn to the fires that must be the causal factor.  You and all your cohorts love to storm around saying that "fire has never collasped steel framed high-rise before", and thus conclude that fire did not play a role in the collaspe.  Therefore, you and your ilk buy the silly theory propagated by the fired from tenure ex-professor Jones and his absolutely stupid assertion that the collaspe was solely the result of a controlled demolition.

    Does that about summarize things?  What do you say Supertrucker?

    BTW, do you realize just how bad you have F-up to be released from a tenured position?
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from shumirules. Show shumirules's posts

    Re: WTC Towers were designed to survive Hotter and Longer Burning Fires then those they "collapsed" from on 9/11

    The WTC towers on 9-11-01 did not just have a fire, THEY WERE HIT BY JUMBO JETS AND HAD A HUGE FIRE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    CAN YOU REALLY BE THIS DUMB NOT TO SEE THIS, HELLO NEWMAN.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from sparklebunny. Show sparklebunny's posts

    Re: WTC Towers were designed to survive Hotter and Longer Burning Fires then those they "collapsed" from on 9/11

    Al-Qaida is angry at Ahmedinehad and (hopefully) the rest of the troofers.  They want you to cut it out.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/28/al-qaida-ahmadinejad-911-conspiracy
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from freedom2fascism. Show freedom2fascism's posts

    Re: WTC Towers were designed to survive Hotter and Longer Burning Fires then those they "collapsed" from on 9/11

    In Response to Re: WTC Towers were designed to survive Hotter and Longer Burning Fires then those they "collapsed" from on 9/11:
    Yet AGAIN he runs like a coward from the threads where the questions are posed and starts another. In Response to Re: The Definitive 9/11 Exposé that Cannot be Denied. : In Response to This thread You are the most intellectually dishonest person I have spoken to on these boards, well, perhaps aside from skeeter20. You say the towers shouldn't have fallen according to the plans. You recognize reality: That they did in fact fall, after one hour. You rely on that fact to support your theory that bombs were used. Or nano-thermite. Or shark-lasers. But you ignore the fundamental flaw in your argument, and you run away from my challenge like the coward truther you are: All you have done is show that the plans were faulty, and that a building constructed according to those specifications in fact can not survive such impacts. The assumption that the building MUST fall instantly or MUST NOT EVER fall is completely unsupported. It's lying right at the heart of everything you've said for years. And it's a bad assumption. There is no reason to make it. It is not logical. (And as I pointed out in my paraphrase of this thread above, the fact that a completely different fire didn't cause the tower to fall is completely irrelevant). Fail. Even your fellow truther thinks you're an idiot. In Response to Re: Will the truthers answer? : Instead he has chosen to rely on what we've discussed - the shaky reliance on a very select group of people who claim to have been in the area and were able to identify the specific location of sounds and identify those sounds as explosions-from-bombs-used-to-destroy-towers.... ...(as opposed to explosions and explosion-like sounds that result from thousands of tons of combustibles and metal falling, settling, and burning, as potentially misperceived by the fact that said persons were watching, or were helping, to rescue victims from the hell as it was in the process of all breaking loose). Now they're reduced to quoting a few 90+ year old "experts" (while posting pictures of them from 40 years ago - not at all misleading) and a few people who claim - in contrast to everyone else - to have "heard explosions" somewhere in the vicinity. And watching reruns of The Matrix.
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow


    You are the most intellectually dishonest person I have spoken to on these boards, well, perhaps aside from skeeter20.

    And I can say the exact same thing about you. You do your damned best to spin anything that disproves the official story, looking for a tiny character flaw in each of the hundreds, no thousands of professionally qualified people who challenge the story – as if there is anyone that has no minor flaws – so you can totally disregard the solid facts they bring from their particular discipline –high rise architects – structural engineers – my god even high rise demolition experts.

    Do you not call this intellectually dishonest?

    And when you can’t find a flaw, or can’t dig up some spin that muddies the water, instead of taking a hard serious look at the reality, you just throw out personal attacks – tin foil hat, loon, cut and paste.

    How totally intellectually dishonest is that behavior?

    You are an intelligent person, and that’s why I have accused people like you of being paid trolls. I have had a hard time rationalizing an intelligent person that acts the way you do when you are provided so many facts that anyone with a brain should be extremely troubled by. But you aggressively do your best to spin it all away, hence my labeling you as a paid disinformation troll. But I realize there is something else that makes you this way, and that is FEAR – pure unadulterated fear. If you allow your mind to grasp the reality, your whole world collapses. Our government whose job it is to protect us, is in fact a dangerous beast that has some very dark plans in mind.

    But let me tell you this – hiding from the truth will not change the truth, and in fact, when smart people refuse to acknowledge they are under attack, they will enable their attackers to succeed.

    You say the towers shouldn't have fallen according to the plans.

    You recognize reality: That they did in fact fall, after one hour.

    You rely on that fact to support your theory that bombs were used. Or nano-thermite. Or shark-lasers.

    But you ignore the fundamental flaw in your argument, and you run away from my challenge like the coward truther you are: All you have done is show that the plans were faulty, and that a building constructed according to those specifications in fact can not survive such impacts.

    The assumption that the building MUST fall instantly or MUST NOT EVER fall is completely unsupported.

    It's lying right at the heart of everything you've said for years.

    And it's a bad assumption. There is no reason to make it. It is not logical.

    I never run away, I instigate these types of sessions, I want the truth out there.

    And the tower did survive such impacts – one for over an hour. If the impact was so structurally compromising, they would have collapsed immediately upon impact, not one hour later.  The moment of impact was the greatest threat to them, the inertia and destruction was at its greatest, likely causing them to sway away from the impact during that massive force.  There were no further challenges from the planes impact after the impact, all the destruction was done, all the impact force was dissipated, and they stood there proving their design could survive what they were designed to survive.

    (And as I pointed out in my paraphrase of this thread above, the fact that a completely different fire didn't cause the tower to fall is completely irrelevant).

    Instead he has chosen to rely on what we've discussed - the shaky reliance on a very select group of people who claim to have been in the area and were able to identify the specific location of sounds and identify those sounds as explosions-from-bombs-used-to-destroy-towers....

    Of course it’s a select group, what a nonsensical observation. Unlike you, they had the courage to actually look at the government story versus reality, and have boldly, at great risk to their careers, stepped forward and made their observations known to the world.  This action has cost many of them financial loss to do so, some even losing their jobs for their bravery – a Very Select Group indeed

    ...(as opposed to explosions and explosion-like sounds that result from thousands of tons of combustibles and metal falling, settling, and burning, as potentially misperceived by the fact that said persons were watching, or were helping, to rescue victims from the hell as it was in the process of all breaking loose).

    There weren’t thousands of tons of combustibles in those towers, unless they were planted there. What the hell are thousands of tons of combustibles doing in an office building? And falling metal did not make the explosions in the lobby that the fire fighters reported, so huge they dislodged massive slabs of granite veneer from the walls, sent flames shooting, and all the windows were blown outward – long after the plane hit. How do we know the massive lobby explosion was long after the plane hit? Easy, because there were fire fighters there to witness it.  They were not standing around in the lobbies when the planes struck – right?

    So dozens of professional FDNY fire fighters tell you they experienced a massive exposion in the lobby, 90 floors away from the fires, and you refuse to accept that reality. That's insanity!

    I posted half a dozen videos that had likely 15 witnesses to explosions, their words, and because you are so afraid of the truth, you did not watch them. You claim these were publicity seekers looking to make money to dismiss what you were too afraid to actually watch. There  were firefighters and first responders speaking from ground zero right on 9/11, there were average citizens as well, right at GZ on 9/11, there were workers interviewed from their hospital beds where the explosions they want to tell you about put them

    Now they're reduced to quoting a few 90+ year old "experts" (while posting pictures of them from 40 years ago - not at all misleading) and a few people who claim - in contrast to everyone else - to have "heard explosions" somewhere in the vicinity.

    And as a final exposure of YOUR intellectual dishonesty, you try to smear qualified whistle blowers due to their age – as if they are senile – and even exaggerate their age by calling them 90 when you have no idea how old they are.  Just another in your bag of tricks to keep from actually hearing what is said, and thinking for yourself

    If someone is senile you can ascertain that by their speech patterns, and their writings, something you are TOO AFRAID to do

    And as far as the Matrix is concerned, it is you that live in one, carefully taking your daily Blue pill of government propaganda, and eating cardboard while imagining it as 
    delicious steak.


     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from freedom2fascism. Show freedom2fascism's posts

    Re: WTC Towers were designed to survive Hotter and Longer Burning Fires then those they "collapsed" from on 9/11

    Also, now you have come back to the planes impact as the reason the towers collapsed, because there have been hotter fires in the towers, burning longer - 3 hours - and no collapse.

    But what then about WTC7 - no plane struck that one, an it collapsed in an amazing display of the most picture perfect controlled demolition ever filmed - the very best ever.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from shumirules. Show shumirules's posts

    Re: WTC Towers were designed to survive Hotter and Longer Burning Fires then those they "collapsed" from on 9/11

    In Response to Re: WTC Towers were designed to survive Hotter and Longer Burning Fires then those they "collapsed" from on 9/11:
    Also, now you have come back to the planes impact as the reason the towers collapsed, because there have been hotter fires in the towers, burning longer - 3 hours - and no collapse. But what then about WTC7 - no plane struck that one, an it collapsed in an amazing display of the most picture perfect controlled demolition ever filmed - the very best ever.
    Posted by freedom2fascism


    No it was hit by the falling WTC towers, and it also had a huge fire burn for hours.

    Not to mention how it was designed.

    Oh and dont show me pictures of WTC 7 from the side that was not damaged and say see nothing hit it.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from freedom2fascism. Show freedom2fascism's posts

    Re: WTC Towers were designed to survive Hotter and Longer Burning Fires then those they "collapsed" from on 9/11

    In Response to Re: WTC Towers were designed to survive Hotter and Longer Burning Fires then those they "collapsed" from on 9/11:
    " If the impact was so structurally compromising, they would have collapsed immediately upon impact, not one hour later. " Again, you're just making it up because you don't have anything to plug this - one of many - massive hole in your argument. Of course it’s a select group, what a nonsensical observation. Unlike you, they had the courage So, nevermind that you are only listening to the few people who were deliberately misquoted to support trutherism...they're BRAVE. So I should believe every word truthers put in their mouths. here weren’t thousands of tons of combustibles in those towers, unless they were planted there. What the hell are thousands of tons of combustibles doing in an office building? Again. Making things up. I never said combustibles in the building. You did. What I did say is that what the people you quote actually say is they thought they heard sounds like explosions. You need that to mean that there were in fact explosions. It doesn't. Nice twisting, disinfo troll. " by calling them 90 when you have no idea how old they are. " Oh? Then don't try to deceive us by putting up pictures from the 70s next to their names. Liar. Coward. You did exactly what I thought: You did your best to spin and twist, and completely avoided directly responding to the problem. Which, again, is that all you've done is shown that the plans were faulty - contrary to the engineers' designs, the towers could not withstand 500 mph impacts from fuel-laden flames and the resulting fires. Fail.
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow

    "don't try to deceive us by putting up pictures from the 70s next to their names"

    Oh did that deceive you? Did you think that was done to fool you into believing what they had to say? Because you wouldn't believe them if you knew their age?

    Once again you blather out of fear, scramble for the tiniest and nearly transparent of escape hatches, with this latest nonsense I'm gonna call the Truther "photogate" conspiracy.

    Did you ever stop to think that the photos posted are the latest and only photos available? No, you're just too frightened to think.



     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from freedom2fascism. Show freedom2fascism's posts

    Re: WTC Towers were designed to survive Hotter and Longer Burning Fires then those they "collapsed" from on 9/11

    In Response to Re: WTC Towers were designed to survive Hotter and Longer Burning Fires then those they "collapsed" from on 9/11:
    In Response to Re: WTC Towers were designed to survive Hotter and Longer Burning Fires then those they "collapsed" from on 9/11 : No it was hit by the falling WTC towers, and it also had a huge fire burn for hours. Not to mention how it was designed. Oh and dont show me pictures of WTC 7 from the side that was not damaged and say see nothing hit it.
    Posted by shumirules


    I don't suppose that the fact NIST has unequivocally stated in their Fabulous Final Report that the damage from WTC1 debris was minor and non structural in nature, and that this damage did not contribute to the collapse, means anything to you.

    The NIST analysis specified the exact cause of collapse being the failure of vertical column 79 at the 12th level, which was located on the North side of WTC7. The debris damage was on the South face.

    Column 79 was also located nearest the North East corner of WTC7, while the minor debris damage was in the middle of the South side. NIST was correct in their statement, and they pretty much had no choice in the matter because these facts were well known, and there was a whole cross-braced steel structure between the failed column 79 and the minor damage.

    Why do you persist in defending the always-lying government and their fairy-tale theory?


     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from freedom2fascism. Show freedom2fascism's posts

    Re: WTC Towers were designed to survive Hotter and Longer Burning Fires then those they "collapsed" from on 9/11

    In Response to Re: WTC Towers were designed to survive Hotter and Longer Burning Fires then those they "collapsed" from on 9/11:
    In Response to Re: WTC Towers were designed to survive Hotter and Longer Burning Fires then those they "collapsed" from on 9/11 : My grandma was sharp until 90. By 92 she had mostly lost it. So yeah, age is a pretty important factor if it's 90. Oh, I'm frightened? I wasn't aware. Usually there's a feeling of anxiety rising from the stomach, etc. But I understand. I'm "frightened". But you're "Brave".  So I should believe what you say. Ok.
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow

    My grandmother was razor sharp until she passed at 94. I know a few at 45 that are senile already. All it proves is everyone is different, and often those that keep themselves mentally fit through heavy use of their faculties keep their faculties, like the highly credentialed people that were posted.

    Your complaint about being fooled by pictures that are not representative of the person's age is bull - all you have to do is look at the photo and you can tell if it's from the 70's.

    It's just another easy way for you to get out of facing the facts being presented.

    As always, you look for a way to dismiss those bringing the truth, so you don't have to consider the consequences of that truth.

    That is nothing more than hiding from potentially unpleasant realities, and that's an accurate description of a coward. 

    And until you realize it, you will continue to suffer from it.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from freedom2fascism. Show freedom2fascism's posts

    Re: WTC Towers were designed to survive Hotter and Longer Burning Fires then those they "collapsed" from on 9/11

    In Response to Re: WTC Towers were designed to survive Hotter and Longer Burning Fires then those they "collapsed" from on 9/11:
    I suppose this thread has already been crapped on enough that he'll start a brand new one tomorrow...
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow

    No worries, I will continue to reply to this thread as long as anyone wants to, but regardless, there indeed will be more new ones tomorrow, because there are so many smoking guns to be exposed, and so precious little time.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from freedom2fascism. Show freedom2fascism's posts

    Re: WTC Towers were designed to survive Hotter and Longer Burning Fires then those they "collapsed" from on 9/11

    In Response to Re: WTC Towers were designed to survive Hotter and Longer Burning Fires then those they "collapsed" from on 9/11:
    In Response to Re: WTC Towers were designed to survive Hotter and Longer Burning Fires then those they "collapsed" from on 9/11 : I have no doubt that you will continue to hit "add your reply." Not that you will add anything of substance. You already ran away from the fundamental problem with this: That all you did is show the plans were incorrect and that the building could not remain standing permanently after being struck by a fuel laden plane at 500mph. You successfully used your own "disinfo troll" tactic to steer the thread to a discussion of whether or not posting pictures from the 70s to hide the fact that your "experts" are potentially demented at this point....
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow


    This is what I am talking about with you and your complete inability to grasp a simple yet very important concept. 

    It's right in front of your face but you refuse to see.

    Both towers stood for about one full hour after the impact. 

    The moment of impact was the greatest amount of stress on the assembly of steel bracing, joints, welds and rivets. After the reverberations from the impact subsided, maybe within one to two minutes, there were no further stresses on this framework. Can't you see this? If you can't see this, or don't believe this, then please tell me what additional stresses were applied to the two tower's frameworks.

    And then the two Towers, which were struck in completely different areas of their surfaces, WTC1 struck straight in the middle at the 92-98th floor, WTC2 struck off to one side and out an adjacent corner at the 78-84th floor,causing damage to totally different parts of their design, yet somehow and without any further stresses or impacts, and after up to and over an hour of quiet standing, both collapsed in exactly the same shocking fashion.

    An object does not suffer impact damage, stand around for an hour and then suddenly exhibit design failures from that impact, let alone TWO IN A ROW!

    Please tell me how this could have happened, I would be extremely interested to know.


     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Eaglesmeagle. Show Eaglesmeagle's posts

    Re: WTC Towers were designed to survive Hotter and Longer Burning Fires then those they "collapsed" from on 9/11

    In Response to WTC Towers were designed to survive Hotter and Longer Burning Fires then those they "collapsed" from on 9/11:
    WTC Towers were designed to survive Hotter and Longer Burning Fires then those they "collapsed" from on 9/11 How do I know this? Simple - The North Tower previously survived a multi-floor "Blowtorch" fire that burned so hot windows were destroyed from the heat, and unlike on 9/11 this fire lasted for over three hours - without collapsing . So... Let's recap. We already knew the Towers were designed to survive a direct crash by a 707, because they did, standing for up to an hour after the impacts. And now we know they were designed to survive a hotter and longer burning fire than the one NIST claims felled them, because one already had. (3 times as long!) So it wasn't the crash, and it wasn't the fire... hmmmmmm - wonder what it could have been?  
    Posted by freedom2fascism


    What about the Titanic?  She was built and deemed "unsinkable", but we all know how that turned out.  She hit an iceberg, stayed afloat for an hour or so, then had a catastrophic failure when she spit in two, or maybe three pieces due to added pressure of the combined damage, weight of the ship, and water.  My point is just because something gets "labeled" doesn't mean it's true.  What if like the Titanic, there was a defect in the towers, something in the design, or metal used, that was flawed and not known at the time?  We now know that the Titanics rivets and steel were flawed.  Is it possible that the towers had a flaw?  And that is why they BOTH came down as a result of that?  Have any "truthers" even tried to think OUTSIDE the conspiracy box for just a moment? 
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from freedom2fascism. Show freedom2fascism's posts

    Re: WTC Towers were designed to survive Hotter and Longer Burning Fires then those they "collapsed" from on 9/11

    In Response to Re: WTC Towers were designed to survive Hotter and Longer Burning Fires then those they "collapsed" from on 9/11:
    In Response to WTC Towers were designed to survive Hotter and Longer Burning Fires then those they "collapsed" from on 9/11 : What about the Titanic?  She was built and deemed "unsinkable", but we all know how that turned out.  She hit an iceberg, stayed afloat for an hour or so, then had a catastrophic failure when she spit in two, or maybe three pieces due to added pressure of the combined damage, weight of the ship, and water.  My point is just because something gets "labeled" doesn't mean it's true.  What if like the Titanic, there was a defect in the towers, something in the design, or metal used, that was flawed and not known at the time?  We now know that the Titanics rivets and steel were flawed.  Is it possible that the towers had a flaw?  And that is why they BOTH came down as a result of that?  Have any "truthers" even tried to think OUTSIDE the conspiracy box for just a moment? 
    Posted by Eaglesmeagle

    I got INSIDE the conspiracy box from the OUTSIDE.

    For 2-3 years after 9/11 I did not doubt the official story, even as it evolved and morphed to fit the facts that kept coming to light.

    And I did not get inside that box overnight. It was a series of issues brought to my attention, issues which I at first did not believe, I ridiculed, and I pretty much ignored. But eventually I did look at them, and since then I have not been able to see this attack any other way, even though I wish with all my heart that the government story was true. I despise the reality of what was done to us, and even more I despise what is being done to us under the color of the war on terror. I have kids whom I love whose lives will be quite different from what I experienced growing up, and very much for the worse.

    I can tell you without reservation that I constantly re-evaluate every aspect of that day as new information becomes available, information from the truther community, and information from the government. But the fact remains that we have grossly been lied to, 9/11 was not the product of the nebulous al qaeda, 19 fanatics and osama. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

    As far as the Titanic is concerned, I appreciate your analogy, but find that it does not fit the happenings on 9/11. I know you are alluding to the possibility of a failed design, but the WTC design did not fail!

    The Titanic had the unfortunate label of unsinkable, creased a massive iceberg, took unstoppable amounts of water in until she was overwhelmed. The 2 main towers were designed to survive the impact of a 707, and when each was struck by a 767, they did survive those strikes, for an average time of one whole hour. Unlike a ship taking on water, the towers did not suffer from further structural damage after the initial impact. The fires were not to blame either, because they had burned up all the combustible materials at the original site (where the plane struck) and had moved to other floors following the available combustible materials. The site of the crash was actually cooled down sufficiently before the collapse to have people standing and sitting right there waving for help, something that could not happen if it were still hot.


    Yet the collapses initiated exactly where the planes struck, exactly where the steel had cooled down, in an area that survived the initial impact, and survived the onslaught of heat from the initial fires. Remember, if fire is sufficiently hot to weaken steel, and the fires extinguish, the steel returns to its previous strength when it cools.

    So if it was not the initial impact, and not the "weakened" steel due to the fires, what caused the massive collapses?

    And then there's WTC7, the Salomon Building, not hit by a plane, which also collapsed, and at least 8 full vertical stories collapsing at 100% pure free fall speed. What caused WTC7 to collapse?

    9/11 was an inside job. It makes me sick to know this, but it is what it is. The sooner we all wake up to that fact, the sooner we may be able to stop the destruction of our nation by those that did it to us.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share