9/11 conspiracy theorists unite - Page 28 - GoFuckYourself.com

2MuchMark · 05-08-2012, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgraves

why isn't there more pictures/video of it hitting the building? one camera that produces still frames? really? government agents went around and collected all the video footage from local stores so what's the big deal about releasing it? if it was a big deal, why release anything at all?

Just because there were no cameras around to capture the event in detail doesn't mean there is any kind of conspiracy. Don't forget that this event happened over 10 years ago now. Today cameras are truly everywhere, but back then people were still screaming about invasion of privacy and "big brother".

btw: Today, "Big Brother" is us.

2MuchMark · 05-08-2012, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

I don't dismiss the speed for those reasons. I dismiss it because regardless or the speed of the impact, it wouldn't have made a difference to the damage or the resulting effect to the building/s...

You just dismissed.

And of course it would.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Well if you want to venture into other areas of speculation, most of the engineers and pilots in question refer to the maneuvers as extraordinary.

Of course they would. Anyone would. The fact that anyone would call the maneuvers extraordinary is itself, not extraordinary. This too should be removed from your list of arguments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Radar and GPS data will not testify to whether an airframe's operator is human or programmed.

No, they testify to the speed and direction of the plane which was my argument. Are you seriously bringing into question whether or not they were flown by remote control now? Not only is that idea a little ridiculous but it also deflects from the point. Don't argue a point by bringing in another argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

This is a good question I don't have the answer off the top of my head. What I do know is that steel of this sort needs controlled and constant temperatures to reach the point of weakness or complete failure of support.

No, not at all. It needs "Enough" heat for a "Long enough" period of time. "Control" is a misleading statement. Remove "control" from your narrative.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Apparently on the order of three hours. This so-called rate is usually 2500°F, which none of the three towers reached in their intended periods...

The fires need not have reached 2500F. All they had to do was burn hot enough and long enough to either weaken the steal beams or the weakest points of the structure would were most probably the points at where the floors were attached to the beams and building.

Also don't forget that The FEMA report also determined that thinning of the steel had occurred by the severe high-temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation, that heating of the steel in a hot corrosive environment at temperatures approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) resulted in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel, and that this sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel.[73] The FEMA report concluded that the severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of the steel columns examined were "very unusual events" and that there was "no clear explanation" for the source of the sulfur found.[74]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

"Projections" at the time and later (as late as 2010) were based on scientific detail and information. You should stop trying to cloud this info in disinfo....

Same to you my friend..!

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Isn't that the energy created by explosives rather than mass/volume failures...?

No. A strange as it is to believe, the energy in the plane crash and explosions was nothing compared to the energy released during the collapse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Wow. So rather than the "official" story which is put out by the govt. you're saying they're all saying something different? Why would that be? This is a single event coordinated by a single suspect and organization whose financing the 9/11 commission claims is not important and which you're now saying was actuated by a bunch of different groups? So who could have done it?

I'm not saying anything like that at all. I don't know who was responsible for it all. I'm only saying that WTC was not brought down by demolition. I didn't see anything else on TV about it so I can't comment on it. I can enjoy the stories and different points of view. The only thing I saw was what was shown to us on TV, and the images of the collapse do not look like a demolition.

WT7 Looks like a demolition at first, but with a little extra digging its easy to see that it is not a demo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

So why do you decide that the government theory/version/vision of facts is accurate? Since there are so many different versions, especially considering that before the firefighter testimonials were released no explosions were heard prior to collapse, for example, how do you make that decision? Faith in your government?

No. Faith in common sense and basic science.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

We can't have the answers obviously because for some reason the City of New York thought it was appropriate to remove the evidence and recycle most of it - though your suggestion that we "never will" is gratuitous and only serves to remove any consideration of a real investigation of the facts in the future...

I know where you are going with this, but it leads to a dead end. It's easy to distrust government, but its not easy to distrust science. I'm no scientist, but you know from when we were kids that science is my hobby (so is astro physics btw). I'm no architect, no engineer, no nothing. But neither are you. I can only base my opinions on common sense, and a little bit of science 101. I have never seen or read anything that contradicts anything I have seen to date.

Lots of people believe in ghosts, religion, astrology, UFO's, etc. I do not. Whenever I ask for proof of any of these things nothing plausible is ever offered. Same goes for the "controlled demolition of wtc".

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Your belief that exposure to the government's theorized amount of heat caused the building/s to collapse is no more than a religious aspiration - purely belief-based without a shred of actual scientific confirmation.

NooooOOoOoo... that is you doing that, Greggy-poo....

dgraves · 05-08-2012, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

Just because there were no cameras around to capture the event in detail doesn't mean there is any kind of conspiracy. Don't forget that this event happened over 10 years ago now. Today cameras are truly everywhere, but back then people were still screaming about invasion of privacy and "big brother".

btw: Today, "Big Brother" is us.

the pentagon wasn't the smoking gun...tower 7 was. i was just surprised that there wasn't more camera angles of the pentagon. who would consider that a good target anyway? if it's really that well constructed then it wasn't a good target for casualties. if symbolism was the purpose then the statue of liberty would have been a better target.

tower 7! i feel like i'm taking crazy pills when people dispute the collapse of tower 7. like i mentioned earlier, if this same attack happened in Iraq and they blamed american terrorist, you would hear from every swinging dick engineer that it was a textbook demo job. when you look at other demo jobs compared to tower 7, they are exactly the same. THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME!

yet, people somehow convince themselves that it was a reasonable conclusion to building damage. a building can collapse into it's own foot print yet not one building code was changed.

2MuchMark · 05-08-2012, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgraves

when you look at other demo jobs compared to tower 7, they are exactly the same. THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME!

That's just it... they aren't exactly the same. They LOOK similar, granted, but when you look closer there are all kinds of differences.

Since they look similar, its EASY to say that it was a controlled demolition, until you realize about all the explosives it would have taken...all the secrecy that would have been involved... all the people it would have taken to do it, and how it would have gone unnoticed.

Some bozo somewhere said that WTC was built with explosions already built into the building(s). Silly.

epitome · 05-08-2012, 11:00 PM

Can't we all agree that if there is an alternate truth that hasn't come out by now it never will, or won't for decades, no matter how much it is discussed on the internet?

It's been almost 11 years.

MediaGuy · 05-09-2012, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

They didn't need to land or take off. Any jackass can hold a stick and turn a plane left or right. I did it with about thirty seconds of instruction.

Yet real pilots and professionals will tell you that hitting the Pentagon for example the way it was is an almost magical feat, possible only by insanely talented and experienced pilots...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

The entire building was pressurized. You launch a fireball into that environment, and it's going to be a party.

Once that pressurized environment is compromised by a huge hole made by a large airplane, your argument is neutered.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

So your saying that shooting flame at transformers and tends of thousands of gallons of oil won't cause further explosions?

Nothing of the sort of reported.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

And no one is saying anything about marble walls and titles except for you.

This requires further reading on your part. Focus on the testimony by the firefighters who set up their control stations in the lobbies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

So people getting burned by fireballs is not proof of a fireball. It's proof that they magically got burned for no reason at all.

Good one.

Who said there wasn't a or multiple fireballs?

Explosions from the basements that would take out parts of the lobby make more sense than fireballs zooming down from 100 stories up.

:D

Rochard · 05-09-2012, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Yet real pilots and professionals will tell you that hitting the Pentagon for example the way it was is an almost magical feat, possible only by insanely talented and experienced pilots...

Anyone can crash a fucking airplane into a building. Anyone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Once that pressurized environment is compromised by a huge hole made by a large airplane, your argument is neutered.

Not at all.

You continue to assume this was a regular building and a regular fire. Even after the impact, most the building was still airtight. On the floors where the air tight seal was broken, it wasn't a fire, but a fire storm. You had air under pressure trying to escape, and air from the wind trying to get in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Nothing of the sort of reported.

Really? Your telling me that there was explosions in the basement, and now your telling me nothing was reported? Which was it?

Your telling us that there was explosions in the basement, and I'm telling you that fireballs rushed down to the basement and set only god knows what on fire. AGAIN your assuming that this is "just a building" and now "just a basement" without understanding that the basement of the WTC was less of a basement and more of a city that included a power plant, back up generators, transforms, HVAC equiptment, tens of thousands of gallons of oil, a subway station, and shopping center.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Explosions from the basements that would take out parts of the lobby make more sense than fireballs zooming down from 100 stories up.

The only person saying anything about taking out parts of the lobby is YOU. The windows were broken, and some minor damage was done, but it was used as a command center by the fire department when this went down.

MediaGuy · 05-09-2012, 02:09 PM

First off, I apologize to Mark because many of my "replies" were actually to Rochard, and I was copy-pasting the wrong quote tag (probably because my notepad was stuffed or something and I just didn't notice):

BUT since Mark and Rochard follow the same belief-line, the responses are or would be the same....

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

Just because there were no cameras around to capture the event in detail doesn't mean there is any kind of conspiracy. Don't forget that this event happened over 10 years ago now. Today cameras are truly everywhere, but back then people were still screaming about invasion of privacy and "big brother".

btw: Today, "Big Brother" is us.

I didn't claim that there is a conspiracy "because there were no cameras around".

The FBI has officially claimed they seized over 80 video recordings of the crash into the Pentagon... why not release them?

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

You just dismissed.

And of course it would.

I dismiss the argument between maximum ground/airspeed because it basically serves to obfuscate the real issue.

[QUOTE=**********;18937027]Of course they would. Anyone would. The fact that anyone would call the maneuvers extraordinary is itself, not extraordinary. This too should be removed from your list of arguments. [/qoute]

Please explain your rationale? The fact that experienced professional pilots say they couldn't nor do they know any others with the ability to fly this way should not be discounted from the discussion at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

No, they testify to the speed and direction of the plane which was my argument. Are you seriously bringing into question whether or not they were flown by remote control now? Not only is that idea a little ridiculous but it also deflects from the point. Don't argue a point by bringing in another argument.

I have no intention of bringing a "remote control" conspiracy theory into any argument as it would not be grounded in any factual data.

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

No, not at all. It needs "Enough" heat for a "Long enough" period of time. "Control" is a misleading statement. Remove "control" from your narrative.

There's no reason to remove the idea of controlled temperature management from the argument since that is the only way you can have steel first soften/weaken and then fail - over time and temperature.

If you flash your steel with 2500 farenheit heat for ten minutes then reduce the heat to half or a quarter of this, and then bring it back up, and then back down, you will not get the same result.

The WTC fires weren't controlled thus regulated to furnish constant enough temps to allow steel the time to weaken, let alone succumb completely from any load bearing functions...

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

The fires need not have reached 2500F. All they had to do was burn hot enough and long enough to either weaken the steal beams or the weakest points of the structure would were most probably the points at where the floors were attached to the beams and building.

Right. And they weren't hot enough long enough to neither weaken or completely compromise the steel of any of the buildings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

Also don't forget that The FEMA report also determined that thinning of the steel had occurred by the severe high-temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation, that heating of the steel in a hot corrosive environment at temperatures approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) resulted in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel, and that this sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel.[73] The FEMA report concluded that the severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of the steel columns examined were "very unusual events" and that there was "no clear explanation" for the source of the sulfur found.

I removed that pesky [74] from your copy-paste...

The fact that a eutectic steel reaction was reported by FEMA is probably one of the reasons it was taken off the investigation.

The data you report attests to metal/heat reactions that can only be caused by nanothermite, or thermate, which was denied by NIST.

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

No. A strange as it is to believe, the energy in the plane crash and explosions was nothing compared to the energy released during the collapse.

Which in scientific reality means that the collapse cannot be the result of normal, gravity imposed influence. You contradict yourself, my friend...

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

I'm not saying anything like that at all. I don't know who was responsible for it all. I'm only saying that WTC was not brought down by demolition. I didn't see anything else on TV about it so I can't comment on it. I can enjoy the stories and different points of view. The only thing I saw was what was shown to us on TV, and the images of the collapse do not look like a demolition.

You see, this is where objective and empirical observation diverge. How can one look at WTC7 and say it was NOT demolition, standard and classic?

The two towers were so alike, and symmetrical, and complete in their "collapses" how can anyone say it was "organic" ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

WT7 Looks like a demolition at first, but with a little extra digging its easy to see that it is not a demo.

Really? And where did you do this "little extra digging"? Popular Mechanics and their already debunked repetition of the government's own repudiated "explanation"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

No. Faith in common sense and basic science.

Hah! again "common sense" - you certainly did not apply any "science" to your evaluation, except those principles which forgive your beliefs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

I know where you are going with this, but it leads to a dead end. It's easy to distrust government, but its not easy to distrust science. I'm no scientist, but you know from when we were kids that science is my hobby (so is astro physics btw). I'm no architect, no engineer, no nothing. But neither are you. I can only base my opinions on common sense, and a little bit of science 101. I have never seen or read anything that contradicts anything I have seen to date.

That you've seen nothing that contradicts your belief in the official story of 9/11, God, Buddah, or Allah is regardless.

The fact is that buildings do not come down like the 9/11 buildings did, organically or in non-controlled "accidental" fashion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

Lots of people believe in ghosts, religion, astrology, UFO's, etc. I do not. Whenever I ask for proof of any of these things nothing plausible is ever offered. Same goes for the "controlled demolition of wtc".

You're kidding me. You don't believe in ghosts etc... but you believe the shit that is provided by the government for the collosal destruction of the WTC without any proof or validation whatsoever?!? Dude, you need a reality check.

2MuchMark · 05-09-2012, 02:22 PM

Lolz...

Sorry sir Gregory but I've seen all the same videos that you have. The destruction at WTC doesn't look like a demolition and even if it did, there's alot more proof that it was destroyed by planes and fire, and no credible evidence that it was demolished. The "evidence" that has been presented is so far fetched, it falls off my own personal "common sense" table.

MediaGuy · 05-09-2012, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Anyone can crash a fucking airplane into a building. Anyone.

Your continued assertion is repudiated by experienced pilots. These are no video games. The assault on the Pentagon was targetted and precise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

You continue to assume this was a regular building and a regular fire. Even after the impact, most the building was still airtight. On the floors where the air tight seal was broken, it wasn't a fire, but a fire storm. You had air under pressure trying to escape, and air from the wind trying to get in.

Thus if floors were "airtight" as you claim and as the post-1996 fire refections would indicate, none of your claims could be accurate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Really? Your telling me that there was explosions in the basement, and now your telling me nothing was reported? Which was it?

What was reported by the 9/11 commision and what was reported by non-government outlets are completely different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Your telling us that there was explosions in the basement, and I'm telling you that fireballs rushed down to the basement and set only god knows what on fire. AGAIN your assuming that this is "just a building" and now "just a basement" without understanding that the basement of the WTC was less of a basement and more of a city that included a power plant, back up generators, transforms, HVAC equiptment, tens of thousands of gallons of oil, a subway station, and shopping center.

Again, the explosions in the basement were unreported by your 9/11 Commission.

There were also no diesel or secondary explosive events reported by ANY of the asociated nad secondary "investigative" bodies.

Your city is in your imagination. What happened to it was as well...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

The only person saying anything about taking out parts of the lobby is YOU. The windows were broken, and some minor damage was done, but it was used as a command center by the fire department when this went down.

I am NOT the "only person saying anything about" the effects on the lobby. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b25_1252615916

You are the only one un-informed enough to be claiming the opposite.

Goto http://www.historycommons.org/projec...ct=911_project and inform yourself. That is not a conspiracy website, btw...

:D

MediaGuy · 05-09-2012, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

Lolz...

Sorry sir Gregory but I've seen all the same videos that you have. The destruction at WTC doesn't look like a demolition and even if it did, there's alot more proof that it was destroyed by planes and fire, and no credible evidence that it was demolished. The "evidence" that has been presented is so far fetched, it falls off my own personal "common sense" table.

Really? where is and what is the "alot more proof that it was destroyed by planes and fire" ?

Link me up!

:D

MediaGuy · 05-09-2012, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

Lolz...

Sorry sir Gregory but I've seen all the same videos that you have. The destruction at WTC doesn't look like a demolition and even if it did, there's alot more proof that it was destroyed by planes and fire, and no credible evidence that it was demolished. The "evidence" that has been presented is so far fetched, it falls off my own personal "common sense" table.

Really...? So produce the "proof that it was destroyed by planes and fire".

I have already posted and can do so again actual evidence to the contrary. Can you and your contrarian, obsessed friends actaully post to the contrary?!?

So far, the answer have been "No".

Most of the responses have been unsubstantiated name calleing.

wtf?

:D

theking · 05-09-2012, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Really...? So produce the "proof that it was destroyed by planes and fire".

I have already posted and can do so again actual evidence to the contrary. Can you and your contrarian, obsessed friends actaully post to the contrary?!?

So far, the answer have been "No".

Most of the responses have been unsubstantiated name calleing.

wtf?

:D

No...you have not and cannot post any "actual evidence" to the contrary...because said evidence does not exist...other than in your own mind.

On the other hand...there is actual evidence of planes hitting the towers...there is actual evidence of the fires in the towers and there is actual evidence of the towers collasping...a case of what you see is what you get.

All of your questions...speculations...inferences and total bs or those of others is not actual evidence.

Rochard · 05-09-2012, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Your continued assertion is repudiated by experienced pilots. These are no video games. The assault on the Pentagon was targetted and precise.

And I'm telling you I've flown an airplane with about sixty seconds of instruction without so much as stepping foot in a classroom. Could I land the plane? Highly unlikely. But all of these guys went to flight school, so it's not like they couldn't do it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Thus if floors were "airtight" as you claim and as the post-1996 fire refections would indicate, none of your claims could be accurate.

Clearly your not understanding this.

The entire building, flood by floor, was airtight. When you stepped into the lobby, there was a breeze going through the entire floor - which was like five or six stories tall. Every floor was airtight. Every elevator shaft was airtight. When you stepped outside on the observation deck, you had to fight with the door because of the suction.

You slice that building with an airplane, that changes everything. You have multiple floors with a huge gaping hole. The elevator shafts - which had access to nearly all floors - were no longer airtight. The floors with sky lobbies were no longer air tight. The lobby had it's windows blown out, and was no longer air tight.

This was a massive firestorm farmed by strong winds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Again, the explosions in the basement were unreported by your 9/11 Commission.

And the explosions on the 48th floor in the sky lobby when the elevator shaft was blown open and the emergency back up generators there caught fire weren't reported.

So much happened that day that they couldn't report it all in three hundred pages. At a certain point in time, they had to pick and choose what to put in the final condensed report.

Rochard · 05-09-2012, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

there is actual evidence of planes hitting the towers...there is actual evidence of the fires in the towers and there is actual evidence of the towers collasping...a case of what you see is what you get.

This is one of the things I don't get.

Let's just say the US Government - or any other organization - wanted to take down the towers using explosives such as Mediaguy claims. Why wouldn't just light a simple fire to get the bulk of the people to leave and then just blow it? Why all the planes and such nonsense?

Another thing that doens't make sense in their claims.

Rochard · 05-09-2012, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Really...? So produce the "proof that it was destroyed by planes and fire".

Everyone saw the plane hit the fucking towers, and the resulting fire.

Done.

MediaGuy · 05-09-2012, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

No...you have not and cannot post any "actual evidence" to the contrary...because said evidence does not exist...other than in your own mind.

Unfotunately for your belief system, you're incorrect. And you should refer to links in this thread for confirmation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

On the other hand...there is actual evidence of planes hitting the towers...there is actual evidence of the fires in the towers and there is actual evidence of the towers collasping...a case of what you see is what you get.

These are facts... however they did not and could not have led to complete collapse, and you cannot provide evidence or facts to back this up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

And I'm telling you I've flown an airplane with about sixty seconds of instruction without so much as stepping foot in a classroom. Could I land the plane? Highly unlikely. But all of these guys went to flight school, so it's not like they couldn't do it.

Uh... and they failed miserably. What are you trying to corroborate here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

The entire building, flood by floor, was airtight. When you stepped into the lobby, there was a breeze going through the entire floor - which was like five or six stories tall. Every floor was airtight. Every elevator shaft was airtight. When you stepped outside on the observation deck, you had to fight with the door because of the suction.

Who cares? What the fuck are you talking about?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

You slice that building with an airplane, that changes everything. You have multiple floors with a huge gaping hole. The elevator shafts - which had access to nearly all floors - were no longer airtight. The floors with sky lobbies were no longer air tight. The lobby had it's windows blown out, and was no longer air tight.

So you're saying as I did that the bulding was no longer "air tight" once the jets broke into them.? I mean be consistent. You're contradicting yourself and all your contentions here....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

So much happened that day that they couldn't report it all in three hundred pages. At a certain point in time, they had to pick and choose what to put in the final condensed report.

So you're saying that the 9/11 Commission Report was inaccurate and edited for length considerations... ok. So they lied just because they "had to" considering length... and what else? I mean you're the expert so what's with all this false reporting?

:D

MediaGuy · 05-09-2012, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Could I land the plane? Highly unlikely. But all of these guys went to flight school, so it's not like they couldn't do it.

But all "these guys" failed all aspects of their flight school formation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

You slice that building with an airplane, that changes everything. You have multiple floors with a huge gaping hole. The elevator shafts - which had access to nearly all floors - were no longer airtight. The floors with sky lobbies were no longer air tight. The lobby had it's windows blown out, and was no longer air tight.

So you're completely contradicting your earlier "belief" about what happened here...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

And the explosions on the 48th floor in the sky lobby when the elevator shaft was blown open and the emergency back up generators there caught fire weren't reported.

Ok. So somehow these did not weaken the impact of the fireballs on the other floors?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

So much happened that day that they couldn't report it all in three hundred pages. At a certain point in time, they had to pick and choose what to put in the final condensed report.

Really? Where did they report this failure?

Rochard · 05-09-2012, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

So you're saying as I did that the bulding was no longer "air tight" once the jets broke into them.? I mean be consistent. You're contradicting yourself and all your contentions here....

No. I'm saying after the impact it building was not entirely air tight. The bottom and the area at the point of impact had been violated, but this only added more fuel to the fire by making it a firestorm. The amount of wind that must have been moving through that tower must have been huge.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

So you're saying that the 9/11 Commission Report was inaccurate and edited for length considerations... ok. So they lied just because they "had to" considering length... and what else? I mean you're the expert so what's with all this false reporting?

Of course it was edited for length. That's exactly what a report is - it stats the relevant facts. It doesn't mention that there was a suspicious blue Mercedes parked outside of the WTC at the moment of impact because it's not relevant.

Over 1200 people were interviewed and they reviewed over two million documents... Then they reported on what they found. If it wasn't important or relevant, it wasn't reported.

If you wanted every last detailed reported, it would be millions of pages long.

wehateporn · 05-09-2012, 07:07 PM

asdasd · 05-09-2012, 07:19 PM

2MuchMark · 05-09-2012, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Really...? So produce the "proof that it was destroyed by planes and fire".

I'm not a chemist, I'm not a physicist, I'm not an architect, I'm not a scientist. I'm not a demolition expert, I'm not a forensic expert.

And neither are you.

You and I and everyone else here can only say what we believe based on what we have seen on TEEVEE and read in magazines, newspapers and online, by experts, and "experts". The best we can ever hope for is to take all of the info in, and use it as a basis for our OPINION.

My -opinion- is that WTC was felled by planes, fire and damage. What you say should be opinion as well, and not -fact-. No one here is an expert, so words like fact, truth, proof, etc should be left out unless quoted.

I have already posted and can do so again actual evidence to the contrary. Can you and your contrarian, obsessed friends actaully post to the contrary?!?

So far, the answer have been "No".

Most of the responses have been unsubstantiated name calleing.

wtf?

:D[/QUOTE]

2MuchMark · 05-09-2012, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

These are facts... however they did not and could not have led to complete collapse, and you cannot provide evidence or facts to back this up.

Your OPINION is that they did not lead to complete collapse.

MediaGuy · 05-10-2012, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

No. I'm saying after the impact it building was not entirely air tight. The bottom and the area at the point of impact had been violated, but this only added more fuel to the fire by making it a firestorm. The amount of wind that must have been moving through that tower must have been huge.

The fact that the fire was dying at the point of the building's fall, that there was only dark smoke coming from those compromised floors, apparently means nothing. There was no "firestorm". Firefighters at the 72nd floor said they could "knock it out" with only a pair of hoses. They were actually on the compromised floors, and reported no problems breathing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Of course it was edited for length. That's exactly what a report is - it stats the relevant facts. It doesn't mention that there was a suspicious blue Mercedes parked outside of the WTC at the moment of impact because it's not relevant.

No, it was edited to reflect no contradictions to its own pre-conceived conclusions. Any objective, contradictory testimonies (such as that of all the firefighters reporting explosions, witnesses testifying to explosions before the impacts, Norman Mineta describing how Cheney knew about the flight into the Pentagon, Sibel Edmonds outlining the relationship between bin Laden and the CIA, etc. etc...) were excluded.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Over 1200 people were interviewed and they reviewed over two million documents... Then they reported on what they found. If it wasn't important or relevant, it wasn't reported.

Wrong. Your blind faith in the government is incredible condiring your intelligence and skepticism. While excising minor relevancies is normal, the 9/11 report is shockingly devoid of any mentions of all testimony contrary to it's ultimate conclusions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

I'm not a chemist, I'm not a physicist, I'm not an architect, I'm not a scientist. I'm not a demolition expert, I'm not a forensic expert.

And neither are you.

You and I and everyone else here can only say what we believe based on what we have seen on TEEVEE and read in magazines, newspapers and online, by experts, and "experts". The best we can ever hope for is to take all of the info in, and use it as a basis for our OPINION.

My -opinion- is that WTC was felled by planes, fire and damage. What you say should be opinion as well, and not -fact-. No one here is an expert, so words like fact, truth, proof, etc should be left out unless quoted.

Since I know and admit I'm not an expert, and my "common sense" told me on the day they occurred that the buildings were taken down on purpose, I don't rely on religious-style belief, but forensic experts who do have the knowledge and expertise to pronounce themselves to back up what my "common sense" told me to start with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

Your OPINION is that they did not lead to complete collapse.

My opinion based on what I saw, on what has been shown as evidence, and what has NOT been shown by the government and those that claim the contrary, leads me to think that the buildings were taken down by incendiaries and other external agents, yes...

:D

Rochard · 05-10-2012, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

The fact that the fire was dying at the point of the building's fall, that there was only dark smoke coming from those compromised floors, apparently means nothing. There was no "firestorm". Firefighters at the 72nd floor said they could "knock it out" with only a pair of hoses. They were actually on the compromised floors, and reported no problems breathing.

By that time the damage had already been done.

You keep going back to the fire saying "the fire wasn't enough". It wasn't. It was a combination of the impact damage, the fire, and the stress put on the remaining support. It failed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

No, it was edited to reflect no contradictions to its own pre-conceived conclusions. Any objective, contradictory testimonies (such as that of all the firefighters reporting explosions, witnesses testifying to explosions before the impacts, Norman Mineta describing how Cheney knew about the flight into the Pentagon, Sibel Edmonds outlining the relationship between bin Laden and the CIA, etc. etc...) were excluded.

Yes, we are all sheep.

Don't you think if there was one shred of evidence that the truth was otherwise the press would have jumped all over it? It would have been the story of all times.

And yet still not one person has come forward saying "I helped do it".

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Wrong. Your blind faith in the government is incredible condiring your intelligence and skepticism. While excising minor relevancies is normal, the 9/11 report is shockingly devoid of any mentions of all testimony contrary to it's ultimate conclusions.

I don't have blind faith in the government. I don't believe JFK went down as we were told.

But I have not found on bit of evidence that proves to me it went down any other way than we were told.

Rochard · 05-10-2012, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Since I know and admit I'm not an expert, and my "common sense" told me on the day they occurred that the buildings were taken down on purpose, I don't rely on religious-style belief, but forensic experts who do have the knowledge and expertise to pronounce themselves to back up what my "common sense" told me to start with.

My opinion based on what I saw, on what has been shown as evidence, and what has NOT been shown by the government and those that claim the contrary, leads me to think that the buildings were taken down by incendiaries and other external agents, yes...

:D

Common sense should tell you that a huge plane with tens of thousands of gallons of jet fuel hit a building at nearly six hundred miles per hour, and as expected the building caught fire and fell.

MediaGuy · 05-10-2012, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

This is one of the things I don't get.

Let's just say the US Government - or any other organization - wanted to take down the towers using explosives such as Mediaguy claims. Why wouldn't just light a simple fire to get the bulk of the people to leave and then just blow it? Why all the planes and such nonsense?

Another thing that doens't make sense in their claims.

That is something to consider.

However consider also how dramatic and pervasive the iconic imagery of the burning towers has become.

Consider how much the "attack" contributed to George W. Bush's presidency, and the so-called war in the middle east and the whole 'War on Terror".

The falling and imploded towers gave new life to Rudy Guilianni's career, and were used by all the war hawks to illustrate their ambitions, but WTC7 was not - in fact most people didn't even know about it, a prominent New York judge actually said "World Trade Center What?". and many still don't know about it.

That's because the towers were "useful" and tv-friendly, but not WTC7.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Everyone saw the plane hit the fucking towers, and the resulting fire.

Done.

Right. And anyone involved will tell you they were designed to take planes hitting "the fucking towers".

Has anyone explained why they fell?

No.

Even NIST claimed they couldn't explain it, and their report describes everything that occurred prior to collapse, without going into why or how...

:D

MediaGuy · 05-10-2012, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

By that time the damage had already been done.

You keep going back to the fire saying "the fire wasn't enough". It wasn't. It was a combination of the impact damage, the fire, and the stress put on the remaining support. It failed.

Regardless, this would not have compromised the entirety of the structure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Don't you think if there was one shred of evidence that the truth was otherwise the press would have jumped all over it? It would have been the story of all times.

No, the press were embarassingly pro-administration after the event. For corroboration look up Dan Rather, Daniel Ellsberg, Karen Kwiatkowski, and so on...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

And yet still not one person has come forward saying "I helped do it".

It HAS only been a decade. It took a long time for the JFK killers to come forth. And there have been people who have come out about involvement in the 9/11 attack - they just haven't been covered by the mainstream media...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

But I have not found on bit of evidence that proves to me it went down any other way than we were told.

You've simply not done enough inquiring....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Common sense should tell you that a huge plane with tens of thousands of gallons of jet fuel hit a building at nearly six hundred miles per hour, and as expected the building caught fire and fell.

Common sense would expect that the building would catch fire. Not that it would fall.

:D

MediaGuy · 05-10-2012, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

A fireball is in fact an explosive event. It's a fucking exploding ball of fire.

I never said it had the force to rip off massive marble wall pieces. It didn't. But it did in fact destroy elevator doors.

I didn't say anything about walls or columns in the basement. However, a fireball would do a huge amount of damage to an air conditioning unit, transformer, generator, and tens of thousands of gallons of oil located in the basement.

You already know the fireball traveled all the way down to the lobby and lower levels; This is documented. If you can't see the damage that can be done in the lower levels by a fireball of this size, well, your retarded.

Wow I missed that.

The fireball is hypothesized, not documented at all.

:D

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude · 05-10-2012, 10:29 AM

ADG

Rochard · 05-10-2012, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Wow I missed that.

The fireball is hypothesized, not documented at all.

:D

This video is really powerful. This guy was in the basement when the plane hit and talks about the fireball that ripped open the elevator doors.

Here's Lauren Manning, who was in the lobby who was burned on 82% of her body. This is what she says about that morning:

With an enormous, screeching exhalation, the fire explodes from the elevator banks into the lobby and engulfs me, its tentacles of flame hungrily latching on. An immense weight pushes down on me, and I can barely breathe. I am whipped around ? I see people lying on the floor covered in flames, burning alive.

The fireball wasn't hypothesized at all skippy.

MediaGuy · 05-10-2012, 01:09 PM

So how did these victims determine that the "fireball" was coming down from a thousand feet above or up from basement explosions??

Rochard · 05-10-2012, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

So how did these victims determine that the "fireball" was coming down from a thousand feet above or up from basement explosions??

Oh lord.

SatansCandy · 05-10-2012, 02:52 PM

"In the day of the great slaughter when the towers fall" - Isaiah 700 BC

"For your Hamas against your brother Israel you shall be cut off forever" - Obadiah 1

2MuchMark · 05-10-2012, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

So how did these victims determine that the "fireball" was coming down from a thousand feet above or up from basement explosions??

Dude.... seriously...

Rochard · 05-10-2012, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

Dude.... seriously...

I think that was his attempt at humor.

wehateporn · 05-10-2012, 04:31 PM

Russia Today are brave enough to voice their concerns

911 reasons why 9/11 was (probably) an inside job
Introduction
http://rt.com/usa/news/911-attack-job/

Part 1 - 3 towers, 2 jets
http://rt.com/usa/news/911-attack-reasons-towers/

Part 2 - The Pentagon Crash
http://rt.com/usa/news/911-reason-why-911/

Part 3 - Bin Laden
http://rt.com/usa/news/911-reasons-conspiracy/

wehateporn · 05-10-2012, 04:46 PM

The so-called 'Illuminiti Playing Cards' have a habit of getting their predictions right

Here's another one, notice the Olympic colors and possibly Big Ben

Now here's a scenario from a recent Rockefeller scenario planning document

"The years 2010 to 2020 were dubbed the ?doom decade? for good reason: the 2012 Olympic bombing, which killed 13,000, was followed closely by an earthquake in Indonesia killing 40,000, a tsunami that almost wiped out Nicaragua, and the onset of the West China Famine, caused by a once-in-a-millennium drought linked to climate change. Not surprisingly, this opening series of deadly asynchronous catastrophes (there were more) put enormous pressure on an already overstressed global economy that had entered the decade still in recession."

dgraves · 05-10-2012, 05:58 PM

It was hard for me to believe that Towers 1 & 2 could be completely destroyed but when I saw Building 7, I knew it was a demo job. Buildings don't collapse into their own footprint for any reason. It never happened before and it will never happen again, unless by a highly skilled demo team. Even highly skilled demo teams can't always get it right.

That building went straight down in record time, without lateral movement or delay. How can something so obvious be ignored?

dgraves · 05-10-2012, 06:35 PM

It takes weeks of carefully planning by highly skilled techs to successfully bring a building down into it's own footprint and even at best, it doesn't always go as planned.

Why is so much time and money spent? Simply because buildings aren't designed to collapse into their own footprint! If it were that easy, they would just knock out one corner of the building and let gravity do the rest.

This alone is absolute proof of a demo job. Just open your mind and watch the footage. The building went straight down with not so much as a wobble from resistance! I understand the building had damage. If you kicked the leg out from under a table would it collapse straight down?

If this could happen, then why wasn't a single building code change to prevent it from happening in the future?

Can you honestly say that if you saw this footage before 9/11 that you would think it was anything other than a controlled demo?

dgraves · 05-10-2012, 07:11 PM

I understand there was a very strong motive behind this and that we couldn't just go camp out in Iraq to keep an eye on our oil without a good reason but I'm surprised they couldn't come up with a better way than killing thousands of innocent civilians.

I've been out of the military for 22 years but people still ask me questions like "When do you think we'll pull out of Iraq?". I tell them "As soon as we pull out of all the other countries we occupy".

Rochard · 05-10-2012, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgraves

I understand there was a very strong motive behind this and that we couldn't just go camp out in Iraq to keep an eye on our oil without a good reason but I'm surprised they couldn't come up with a better way than killing thousands of innocent civilians.

It's not "our oil". It never was. We don't get "our oil" from Iraq. We are get our from fucking Canada. I'm so sick of hearing that the Middle East is all about oil. We get most of our oil from Canada and Mexico.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgraves

I've been out of the military for 22 years but people still ask me questions like "When do you think we'll pull out of Iraq?". I tell them "As soon as we pull out of all the other countries we occupy".

Didn't we pull out of Iraq?

Dirty F · 05-10-2012, 09:48 PM

Page 33. Did any of the nutters...eerr truthers post ANY evidence for their claims yet? Like anything? Even the slightest piece of evidence will do.

Dirty F · 05-10-2012, 09:49 PM

After 10 years you'd expect some kind of evidence that the government was behind it right? Well, show me please.

dgraves · 05-10-2012, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

It's not "our oil". It never was. We don't get "our oil" from Iraq. We are get our from fucking Canada. I'm so sick of hearing that the Middle East is all about oil. We get most of our oil from Canada and Mexico.

Oh ok, I must be misinformed along with everyone else in the world. Why are we in Iraq again? So what's the story? A small group of terrorists attack a few US targets and we invade a country over it? Or is it because they had WMDs?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Didn't we pull out of Iraq?

We did? There are no troops there right now?

dgraves · 05-10-2012, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

After 10 years you'd expect some kind of evidence that the government was behind it right? Well, show me please.

C'mon man, you know the government is the judge, jury and executioner. There's plenty of evidence. If you don't think Building 7 alone is enough evidence then this mission was a huge success! Some people look, others see.

bhutocracy · 05-11-2012, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

The falling and imploded towers gave new life to Rudy Guilianni's career, and were used by all the war hawks to illustrate their ambitions, but WTC7 was not - in fact most people didn't even know about it, a prominent New York judge actually said "World Trade Center What?". and many still don't know about it.

That's because the towers were "useful" and tv-friendly, but not WTC7.

So why in bloody fuck do you think anyone with any skidmark of a brain cell would risk getting caught wiring it up with explosives? For April Fools? A dare?

bhutocracy · 05-11-2012, 02:12 AM

*edit* Forgot for a second I'm trying to argue with people with blind religous faith.

dgraves · 05-11-2012, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhutocracy

So why in bloody fuck do you think anyone with any skidmark of a brain cell would risk getting caught wiring it up with explosives? For April Fools? A dare?

It was almost like something very important was contained in Building 7. Hmmm, what could that be?

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude · 05-11-2012, 02:29 AM

ADG

05-09-2012, 02:22 PM	#1359
2MuchMark Videochat Solutions Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 46,102	Lolz... Sorry sir Gregory but I've seen all the same videos that you have. The destruction at WTC doesn't look like a demolition and even if it did, there's alot more proof that it was destroyed by planes and fire, and no credible evidence that it was demolished. The "evidence" that has been presented is so far fetched, it falls off my own personal "common sense" table. __________________ VideoChat Solutions \| Custom Software \| IT Support https://www.2much.net \| https://www.lcntech.com

05-09-2012, 07:07 PM	#1370
wehateporn Promoting Debate on GFY Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 27,172	__________________ Sexy Girls Teasing

05-10-2012, 10:29 AM	#1380
AsianDivaGirlsWebDude Purveyor, Fine Asian Porn Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: San Francisco Bay Area Posts: 38,323	ADG __________________ Asian Diva Girls - Exclusive Photos and Videos Asian Diva Girls Affiliate Program (50% ccBill Revshare)

05-10-2012, 01:09 PM	#1382
MediaGuy Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Montrealquebecanada Posts: 5,500	So how did these victims determine that the "fireball" was coming down from a thousand feet above or up from basement explosions?? __________________ YOU Are Industry News! Press Releases: pr[at]payoutmag.com Facebook: Payout Magazine! Facebook: MIKEB! ICQ: 248843947 Skype: Mediaguy1

05-10-2012, 02:52 PM	#1384
SatansCandy Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 235	"In the day of the great slaughter when the towers fall" - Isaiah 700 BC "For your Hamas against your brother Israel you shall be cut off forever" - Obadiah 1 __________________ "Look You Deaf and Blind" - Isaiah 42 "The tares are the children of Satan, the Father of Lust. Bind the tares and burn them. Cast them into the everlasting fire" - Jesus

05-08-2012, 11:00 PM	#1355
epitome So Fucking Lame Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: St. Petersburg, FL Posts: 12,160	Can't we all agree that if there is an alternate truth that hasn't come out by now it never will, or won't for decades, no matter how much it is discussed on the internet? It's been almost 11 years.

05-09-2012, 07:19 PM	#1371
asdasd So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 1,225

05-10-2012, 04:31 PM	#1387
wehateporn Promoting Debate on GFY Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 27,172	Russia Today are brave enough to voice their concerns 911 reasons why 9/11 was (probably) an inside job Introduction http://rt.com/usa/news/911-attack-job/ Part 1 - 3 towers, 2 jets http://rt.com/usa/news/911-attack-reasons-towers/ Part 2 - The Pentagon Crash http://rt.com/usa/news/911-reason-why-911/ Part 3 - Bin Laden http://rt.com/usa/news/911-reasons-conspiracy/ __________________ Sexy Girls Teasing

05-10-2012, 04:46 PM	#1388
wehateporn Promoting Debate on GFY Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 27,172	The so-called 'Illuminiti Playing Cards' have a habit of getting their predictions right Here's another one, notice the Olympic colors and possibly Big Ben Now here's a scenario from a recent Rockefeller scenario planning document "The years 2010 to 2020 were dubbed the ?doom decade? for good reason: the 2012 Olympic bombing, which killed 13,000, was followed closely by an earthquake in Indonesia killing 40,000, a tsunami that almost wiped out Nicaragua, and the onset of the West China Famine, caused by a once-in-a-millennium drought linked to climate change. Not surprisingly, this opening series of deadly asynchronous catastrophes (there were more) put enormous pressure on an already overstressed global economy that had entered the decade still in recession." __________________ Sexy Girls Teasing

05-10-2012, 05:58 PM	#1389
dgraves Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Scottsdale Posts: 2,283	It was hard for me to believe that Towers 1 & 2 could be completely destroyed but when I saw Building 7, I knew it was a demo job. Buildings don't collapse into their own footprint for any reason. It never happened before and it will never happen again, unless by a highly skilled demo team. Even highly skilled demo teams can't always get it right. That building went straight down in record time, without lateral movement or delay. How can something so obvious be ignored? __________________ Gloryhole Swallow \| Cumpsters \| Spy Tug \| Cum Clinic \| Chica's Place

05-10-2012, 06:35 PM	#1390
dgraves Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Scottsdale Posts: 2,283	It takes weeks of carefully planning by highly skilled techs to successfully bring a building down into it's own footprint and even at best, it doesn't always go as planned. Why is so much time and money spent? Simply because buildings aren't designed to collapse into their own footprint! If it were that easy, they would just knock out one corner of the building and let gravity do the rest. This alone is absolute proof of a demo job. Just open your mind and watch the footage. The building went straight down with not so much as a wobble from resistance! I understand the building had damage. If you kicked the leg out from under a table would it collapse straight down? If this could happen, then why wasn't a single building code change to prevent it from happening in the future? Can you honestly say that if you saw this footage before 9/11 that you would think it was anything other than a controlled demo? __________________ Gloryhole Swallow \| Cumpsters \| Spy Tug \| Cum Clinic \| Chica's Place

05-10-2012, 07:11 PM	#1391
dgraves Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Scottsdale Posts: 2,283	I understand there was a very strong motive behind this and that we couldn't just go camp out in Iraq to keep an eye on our oil without a good reason but I'm surprised they couldn't come up with a better way than killing thousands of innocent civilians. I've been out of the military for 22 years but people still ask me questions like "When do you think we'll pull out of Iraq?". I tell them "As soon as we pull out of all the other countries we occupy". __________________ Gloryhole Swallow \| Cumpsters \| Spy Tug \| Cum Clinic \| Chica's Place

05-10-2012, 09:48 PM	#1393
Dirty F Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 59,204	Page 33. Did any of the nutters...eerr truthers post ANY evidence for their claims yet? Like anything? Even the slightest piece of evidence will do.

05-10-2012, 09:49 PM	#1394
Dirty F Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 59,204	After 10 years you'd expect some kind of evidence that the government was behind it right? Well, show me please.

05-11-2012, 02:12 AM	#1398
bhutocracy Not making A Comeback Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 10,216	edit Forgot for a second I'm trying to argue with people with blind religous faith. Last edited by bhutocracy; 05-11-2012 at 02:14 AM..

05-11-2012, 02:29 AM	#1400
AsianDivaGirlsWebDude Purveyor, Fine Asian Porn Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: San Francisco Bay Area Posts: 38,323	ADG __________________ Asian Diva Girls - Exclusive Photos and Videos Asian Diva Girls Affiliate Program (50% ccBill Revshare) Last edited by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude; 05-11-2012 at 02:30 AM..