4um: The thread that's changed its focus from the original title. Carry on ;)

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Resistance
See other Resistance Articles
Title: The thread that's changed its focus from the original title. Carry on ;)
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 21, 2009
Author: m e
Post Date: 2009-03-21 08:19:06 by Itistoolate
Keywords: None
Views: 11258
Comments: 2261

Officer Jack McLamb's shows:
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030209.mp3
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030309.mp3
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030409.mp3
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030509.mp3
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-1596) not displayed.
.
.
.

#1597. To: TwentyTwelve, war (#1596)
bzzzzzt

The ultimate effect of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. - Herbert Spencer
Dakmar posted on 2009-03-28 1:03:58 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1598. To: TwentyTwelve (#1591)
Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision
By Eric Nalder
Engineers had to consider every peril they could imagine when they designed the World Trade Center three decades ago because, at the time, the twin towers were of unprecedented size for structures made of steel and glass.
"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."
Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world's top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center.
Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.
"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."
Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn't think a single 200- pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load.
"However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage."
He took note of the fact that smoke and fire spread throughout the building yesterday. He said that is possibly because the pressurizing system that stops the spread of smoke didn't work when the electric power went off. Skilling, 72, was not involved in the design of the building mechanics.
Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down.
"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."
Copyright (c) 1993 Seattle Times Company, All Rights Reserved

war posted on 2009-03-28 7:18:21 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1599. To: TwentyTwelve (#1590)
Robertson admitted that they could not plan for how devistating the fires were. Skilling's article is posted above. Skilling's interview, posted above, doesn't seem to make his comment as cut and dry as you'd like. DeMartini was not a design engineer.

war posted on 2009-03-28 7:21:41 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1600. To: TwentyTwelve (#1593)
November? How much of the study into why the collpases happened had bene completed? People usually are baffled until they research imnto why something happened.
You still have yet to answer any of my questions. I am beginning to believe that your point here is to simply spam the thread hoping that I will go away. It's not going to happen.

war posted on 2009-03-28 7:23:31 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1601. To: war, TwentyTwelve, all (#1600)
People usually are baffled until they research imnto why something happened.

There's nothing baffling about it. One only has to watch the video of the disintegration of the towers to see that they were pulverized.
If the floors 'pancaked', then where is the stack of floors at the bottom?
"If I were going to construct a God I would furnish him with some ways and qualities and characteristics which the Present One lacks... He would spend some of His eternities in trying to forgive Himself for making man unhappy when He could have made him happy with the same effort and He would spend the rest of them in studying astronomy." ~ Mark Twain

wudidiz posted on 2009-03-28 8:17:45 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1602. To: war (#1587)
WTC 7 collapsing in 6.odd seconds until you're shown a video that it was actually 13 odd...

You can show a video that it was 13 seconds?
"If I were going to construct a God I would furnish him with some ways and qualities and characteristics which the Present One lacks... He would spend some of His eternities in trying to forgive Himself for making man unhappy when He could have made him happy with the same effort and He would spend the rest of them in studying astronomy." ~ Mark Twain

wudidiz posted on 2009-03-28 8:53:09 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1603. To: war, wudidiz (#1600)
I looked around YouTube a bit, couldn't find a 13 second clip of WTC 7's collapse.
It would seem to me that this is a fact that we should be able to establish from video.
6 seconds or 13 seconds. Pick one.
I think WTC 7 has always been the Truthers' strongest argument.

TooConservative posted on 2009-03-28 9:39:44 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1604. To: TooConservative (#1603)
It doesn't matter if it was 6, 13 or 20 seconds. It was obviously a controlled demolition.

There's no room for argument.
"If I were going to construct a God I would furnish him with some ways and qualities and characteristics which the Present One lacks... He would spend some of His eternities in trying to forgive Himself for making man unhappy when He could have made him happy with the same effort and He would spend the rest of them in studying astronomy." ~ Mark Twain

wudidiz posted on 2009-03-28 10:03:27 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1605. To: wudidiz (#1604)
It doesn't matter if it was 6, 13 or 20 seconds.

Yes, it does.
In debate, if you can't establish facts that both sides will stipulate to, you have no grounds for any kind of debate.
You have to start with shared facts. This matter of how many seconds the collapse took should not even be a matter for debate, there should be plenty of evidence for any reasonable person, plenty of cameras you can time to determine the time for collapse.
Start with the facts you agree on. Then you can have a proper debate.

TooConservative posted on 2009-03-28 10:21:51 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1606. To: TooConservative (#1605)
The sky's blue. Someone can say it's green. They can show me pictures of a green sky. It doesn't matter. The sky's still blue. There is no room for debate. People can argue about whether Bush or the CIA or the Mossad were responsible for 9/11, but not about Building 7 being a controlled demolition or not. Not in the real world.
"If I were going to construct a God I would furnish him with some ways and qualities and characteristics which the Present One lacks... He would spend some of His eternities in trying to forgive Himself for making man unhappy when He could have made him happy with the same effort and He would spend the rest of them in studying astronomy." ~ Mark Twain

wudidiz posted on 2009-03-28 10:26:30 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1607. To: TooConservative (#1605)
It doesn't matter if it was 6, 13 or 20 seconds.
Yes, it does.

Yeah maybe it does, but it was brought down by explosives anyway.
"If I were going to construct a God I would furnish him with some ways and qualities and characteristics which the Present One lacks... He would spend some of His eternities in trying to forgive Himself for making man unhappy when He could have made him happy with the same effort and He would spend the rest of them in studying astronomy." ~ Mark Twain

wudidiz posted on 2009-03-28 10:29:47 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1608. To: wudidiz (#1601)
Pancaked referred to the fact that they fell on top of each other....not how they ended up at the bottom. And posting a pic of a 6 story building which pancaked is a well over the top of disingenious.

war posted on 2009-03-28 11:01:11 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1609. To: wudidiz (#1607)
Yeah maybe it does, but it was brought down by explosives anyway.

The videos of the collapse are suggestive.
You get nowhere in debate if you don't establish the facts both sides will stipulate to.
For instance, none of us argues that WTC 7 never collapsed. If someone won't agree to that, then you can't argue with that person because they're not fact-based.
Similarly, you need to establish the whys and hows of WTC collapsing, how long it took, some of the similarities to a demolition. But you have to start with things like how long did it take to collapse.
The facts are the facts, no matter which side you're on. Without facts, there is no way to apply science or reason and you end up arguing something like a religion, a faith-based belief system. This applies to both Truthers and anti-Truthers.

TooConservative posted on 2009-03-28 11:01:22 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1610. To: wudidiz (#1606)
The sky's blue. Someone can say it's green. They can show me pictures of a green sky.

Those would be fake pictures. That has nothing to do with 9/11.
Try to stop arguing things from analogy. It's always weak, always distorting. And if you want to convince science-based persons, they get suspicious the second you start arguing from analogy.
You don't need to argue from analogy if you have facts.

TooConservative posted on 2009-03-28 11:03:21 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1611. To: TooConservative (#1603)
I still believe that their strongest argument is the reaction of the executive branch that day. I have yet to find that any of their other blatherings stand up to scrutiny. And while I will confess that some aspects take more research than other, I have yet to discover any aspect of their blatherings regarding the actual collapse of the towers to be truthful. IN point of fact, some of their blatherings are directly contradicted by visual records; yet, cling to them they do.

war posted on 2009-03-28 11:04:00 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1612. To: TwentyTwelve (#1594)
Do you know that those jet fuel fires only lasted a few minutes? They did not last long enough to significantly contribute to any temperature rise of the structure. Sorry, thats shear nonsense.

Yea so? Are you claiming that there was nothing inside the Towers that could catch fire after that fuel was consumed?
I have never claimed that jet fuel brought those Towers down...ever...nor have most of the analyses that I have read.

war posted on 2009-03-28 11:07:02 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1613. To: wudidiz (#1602)

CBS Video of the World Trade Center 7 Collapse -

war posted on 2009-03-28 11:08:52 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1614. To: war (#1611)
IN point of fact, some of their blatherings are directly contradicted by visual records; yet, cling to them they do.

Maybe you could post a video of the 13 second collapse and of the Truthers who repudiated their earlier position.
Facts are good for both sides, war. Unless a video has been faked, it is a neutral record. There should be enough videos of WTC 7's collapse to establish such a basic fact, something fundamental to the arguments offered by both sides.

TooConservative posted on 2009-03-28 11:11:26 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1615. To: TooConservative, Wudidiz, christine, Rotara, TwentyTwelve, bluegrass, HOUNDDAWG, all (#1605)
It doesn't matter if it was 6, 13 or 20 seconds.
Yes, it does.
In debate, if you can't establish facts that both sides will stipulate to, you have no grounds for any kind of debate.

Actually I would argue that you are both correct.
I am even willing to accept the stipulation that it was 13 seconds.
Of course that is because it does not materially affect the conclusion. The rate of the collapse has always been a secondary datum which supported the argument but was not essential to the argument.
The primary data to be observed, and which are not in dispute as they are recorded on the video is:
The collapse began symmetrically in 360 degrees meaning it was uniform completely around the perimiter of the building.
One can observe in the video that the building collapses in upon itself. Visible evidence of this fact is the two cracks that appear in the facade along lines approximating the physical presence in the building of the central core structure - the strongest part of the structure. The center of the building then begins to subside pulling the rest of the structure inward. This again supports the observation that the collapse was initiated simultaneously in 360 degrees and thus was thus symmetrical. This is directly at variance with known observations of catastrophic failure of a structure wherein there is always a weak point that gives way thus causing the failure to proceed in the direction of the point of initial failure. For it to collapse symmetrically means that it had to fail simultaneously in 360 degrees thus indicating a causal mechanism initiating a uniform collapse. In a normal catastrophic failure the failure occurs asymmetrically as their is a single point of initial failure which then compromises the structure thus resulting in failure proceeding in that direction. Simultaneous collapse is again buttressed by the appearance of the two cracks allong the core lines in the same unit of time. Were there only one point of failure the buildings collapse would have shown a definite slump in the direction of the point of failure. So, again we are brought back to the observable fact that the collapse was uniform and symmetrical in 360 degrees. This we can all observe without including the disputed datum of the rate of collapse which despite the disputation is measured in mere seconds from the time the first signature occurs until the structure collapses neatly into its own footprint - with the strongest part of the structure failing first.
If we compare the collapse of building 7 to known instances of explosive demolitions of buildings the observable similarity is one of the most striking aspects of the building 7 collapse.
I could build further on the argument but don't have the time at the moment, but I think this demonstrates clearly enough that the collapse of bldg. 7 does not conform to a normal engineering failure and there are elements unaccounted for which initiated the collapse above and beyond a normal structural failure.
""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
Original_Intent posted on 2009-03-28 11:22:39 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1616. To: TooConservative, Original Intent (#1614)
Maybe you could post a video of the 13 second collapse and of the Truthers who repudiated their earlier position.

I had posted that previously...
That is what is frustrating...Troofers make a statement to which they are given either video or analytical evidence that stands in direct contradiction of their assertion but they simply ignore it.
OI posted an entire litany and I took the time to address each and everyone one of his points as well as to question some of his points. Ditto 2012...not one of my questions have ever been addressed.

war posted on 2009-03-28 11:24:55 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1617. To: Original_Intent (#1615)
The rate of the collapse has always been a secondary datum

That is total bullshit...the whole "free fall speed" has been the LYNCHPIN of your C/D nonsense.

war posted on 2009-03-28 11:26:13 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1618. To: war (#1616)
Your job is disinfo. Anyone with a brain knows 911 was an inside job.

Old Friend posted on 2009-03-28 11:31:24 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1619. To: war (#1617)
Not at all as illustrated in my argument above (#1615) in which I placed no reliance on it. The argument simply becomes a little longer since one has to develop a little more background and it requires a little more knowledge to put together. The rate of collapse was a convenient datum to shorten the argument but is not and was not an essential datum - as my argument proves.
""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
Original_Intent posted on 2009-03-28 11:32:06 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1620. To: Original_Intent (#1619)
The rate of collapse was a convenient datum to shorten the argument but is not and was not an essential datum - as my argument proves.

BULLSHIT...the TIME it took to fall was your entire case...
You still have the problem of why, if it was a CD, did the top collapse before the building?
So, where did Jones get his samples and why are you ignoring that question?

war posted on 2009-03-28 11:38:31 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1621. To: Old Friend (#1618)
That would still disqualify you...

war posted on 2009-03-28 11:39:13 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1622. To: Original_Intent (#1615)
The collapse began symmetrically in 360 degrees meaning it was uniform completely around the perimiter of the building.

You need to go back and look at that video...one side of the top visibly sags before the other...

war posted on 2009-03-28 11:40:34 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1623. To: Original_Intent (#1619)

war posted on 2009-03-28 11:52:41 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1624. To: war, Wudidiz, TwentyTwelve, all (#1622)
Attaboy - keep clutching at those straws.
The cracks appear so close together as to be materially insignificant.
The structure observably collapsed symmetrically in 360 degrees with collapse being initiated uniformly in those 360 degrees.
The entire support structure then just ceases to exist, as one sees in a controlled demolition, and the building collapses neatly into its own footprint.
NIST to date has avoided the building 7 collapse and then finally came up with their thermal expansion "hypothesis" to explain away the observable data and thence became a laughingstock everywhere but in the controlled American Media.
At this point the most you do is quibble and throw up whatever hoping it will stick as you continue to try to defend the Official Fairy Tale.
How much DO they pay you?
Do you have to sneak up on the mirror to shave?
'bot on duuuuuuuuuude!
""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
Original_Intent posted on 2009-03-28 11:55:32 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1625. To: Original_Intent (#1624)
The structure observably collapsed symmetrically in 360 degrees with collapse being initiated uniformly in those 360 degrees.

My ass...you can "say" that all you want to as the we watch the left side sag visibly and collapse well prior to the building falling...we also see the top of the structure collapse well before the building does...link those to 13 seconds and that's STRIKE THREE...
Where did Jones get his samples?

war posted on 2009-03-28 12:34:47 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1626. To: war (#1625)
www.yourdailymedia.com/media/1152446814/911_WTC_Squibs
After watching this, it may be tough to see the fall of the buildings without ever noticing the squibs again. A squib is a demolition term for the unique plume of smoke seen immediately after an explosion.

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-28 12:37:40 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1627. To: war (#1625)
911review.org/Wiki/King,Jeff.shtml
www.ifilm.com/video/2768593
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8533904938803031452
www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jAS4Zk059w
9/11 Truth: MIT Engineer Jeff King Proves WTC Collapses Were Controlled Demolitions
Sep 3 '06 at 12:36 PM - 137 views - 0 comments
World - Jeff King, and Engineer at MIT, uses his expertise in the topic to prove that the only way the World Trade Center towers (and building 7) could have come down in the manner they did was if they were brought down by controlled demolitions.
Jeff King's been a critic of the official story for a lot longer than the Scholars group or any of that has been around.

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-28 12:38:52 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1628. To: war (#1625)
HOW TOUGH WERE THE TOWERS?
A lead engineer who worked on the WTC expressed shock that the towers collapsed from plane crashes.
Lee Robertson, the tower's structural engineer, addressed the problem of terrorism in the plans for the building, claiming he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." Lets examine Mr. Robertsons handiwork a bit more and take a look at how these towers were made...
Those 4 cranes you see in the photo, are perched atop the central support core of the tower. This core is built of sheer concrete reinforced by 44 beams of construction grade steel , which, were sealed in asbestos. (1) As you can see, it takes up the majority of the towers footprint. Here is a more accurate sketch of the floorplan...
Compare it to the BBC version further above...Funny how millions of people will see this drawing with 4 steel beams and think it is accurate! Moving on, check out the approach angles of the planes in relation to the positioning of the cores...
Notice how the North Tower takes a direct hit, perpendicular to the core, while the South Tower takes more of an angular hit, almost parallel to the core structure.
Take at Look:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1540044.stm
(1) Source:
letsroll911.org/phpwebsit...NN_user_op=view&ANN_id=13

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-28 12:42:24 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1629. To: TwentyTwelve (#1628)
So, TT, what's gonna happen in 2012?

Bwahaha, you honky suckas...MUD
Devolve Power Outta the Federal Leviathan and Back to the States,
Localities, and Individuals as Prescribed in the U.S. Constitution!!
Mudboy Slim posted on 2009-03-28 12:43:37 ET (1 image) Reply Trace Private Reply
#1630. To: war (#1625)
Another particularly important part of this is to note that Towers one, two, and seven have all of the 10 characteristics of a controlled demolition, a building collapsing from fire and plane impact damage having one of the characteristics of controlled demolition is astronomically rare, the chances of this damage having all 10 characteristics of a controlled demolition and not being a controlled demolition is next to nil. These characteristics are.
1. Each collapse occurred at virtually free fall speed;
2. Each building collapsed straight down, for the most part onto its own footprint;
3. Virtually all the concrete was turned into very fine dust;
4. In the case of the Twin Towers, the dust was blown out horizontally for 200 feet or more;
5. The collapses were total, leaving no steel columns sticking up hundreds of feet into the air;
6. Videos of the collapses reveal "demolition waves", meaning "confluent rows of small explosions"
7. Most of the steel beams and columns came down in sections that were no more than 30 feet long;
8. According to many witnesses, explosions occurred within the buildings;
9. Each collapse was associated with detectable seismic vibrations (suggestive of underground explosions);
10. Each collapse produced molten steel (which would be produced by explosives), resulting in "hot spots" that remained for months.?

Source:
Professor David Ray Griffin

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-28 12:45:20 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1631. To: war (#1625)
The structures failed uniformly and symetrically which is a signature of a controlled demolition not a an asymetrical catastrophic failure.
The rate at which the buildings collapsed was at a near freefall rate. In the case of WTC 7 it was only 0.6 seconds greater that a pure freefall. The only way that can happen is if the opposition i.e., the structural support of the building, its steel and concrete reinforced core, is removed virtually all at once. If it pancaked the pancaking of the outer structure should have left a spire of the central core sticking up above the rubble and each floor would have offered enough resistance to slow the collapse if only for short time. Certainly the aggregate time would be more than 0.6 seconds, but without further experimentation and analysis, costing some millions of dollars I don't have, the exact amount of time is undetermined.
Further the buildings essentially collapsed into their own footprint, again we would not expect this in an asymetric catastrophic failure, but would expect it in a controlled demolition.
No. No matter how you slice and dice it the evidence points at controlled demolition over and over and over again.
That is without looking at, or taking into account, any of the other anomalies such as the tower struck second (WTC 2) failed first - in only 56 minutes, or that one of the towers did begin to topple (again WTC 2) but for some strange reason the structure under it collapsed under it allowing it to drop straight down. How lucky can you get!? Could it be someone hit the switch to set off the demolitions charges so that it would not tip?

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-28 12:48:31 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1632. To: TwentyTwelve, war (#1631)
No matter how you slice and dice it the evidence points at controlled demolition over and over and over again.

Building 7 Controlled Demolition
9/11 Controlled Demolitions of September 11, 2001

Landmark Tower
Implosion March 18,2006, Fort Worth, Texas

litus posted on 2009-03-28 13:04:10 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1633. To: war, Original_Intent (#1632) (Edited)
The collapse began symmetrically in 360 degrees meaning it was uniform completely around the perimiter of the building.

hmmmmm
~ .24 seconds into implosion, bottom video (the Landmark Building controlled demolition) of post #1632...."look at that video...one side of the top visibly sags before the other..".
Does this "evidence" mean that, contrary to claims otherwise, the Landmark Building demolition wasn't in fact controlled...or does the fact that, it, too, showed similar "sagging" as in the WTC 7, where "one side of the top visibly sagg[ed] before the other", indicate that "sagging" itself cannot be used as evidence to negate the likelihood or fact that there was a controlled demolition?

litus posted on 2009-03-28 13:31:58 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1634. To: war (#1625)

postpunk posted on 2009-03-28 13:32:41 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1635. To: Original_Intent, TooConservative, Wudidiz, christine, Rotara, TwentyTwelve, bluegrass, HOUNDDAWG, war (#1615)
If we compare the collapse of building 7 to known instances of explosive demolitions of buildings the observable similarity is one of the most striking aspects of the building 7 collapse.

Every builder/tradesman to whom I've shown the WTC 7 collapse video immediately falls off the fence. It's funny how those who make their living building things can see the utter BS that is the Official Fairy Tale once they see the evidence that's been actively hidden from us hoi polloi.
Eff the Bankers
bluegrass posted on 2009-03-28 13:40:09 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1636. To: TooConservative (#1588)
Trutherism or anti-Trutherism

Odd how 9/11 turned truth into an "ism".
Eff the Bankers
bluegrass posted on 2009-03-28 13:42:00 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1637. To: Original_Intent (#1624)
At this point the most you do is quibble and throw up whatever hoping it will stick as you continue to try to defend the Official Fairy Tale.
How much DO they pay you?

Seriously.
What's the going rate for a National Globalist Party shill these days ?

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Rotara posted on 2009-03-28 13:45:26 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

.
.
.
Comments (1638 - 2261) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

Freedom4um