See other 9/11 Articles
Title: 9/11 and the Evidence
Source:
VDare
URL Source: http://www.vdare.com/roberts/070326_evidence.htm
Published: Mar 27, 2007
Author: Paul Craig Roberts
Post Date: 2007-03-27 12:26:54 by Peetie Wheatstraw
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 2077
Comments: 178
Professor David Ray Griffin is the nemesis of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. In his latest book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, Griffin destroys the credibility of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Popular Mechanics reports, annihilates his critics, and proves himself to be a better scientist and engineer than the defenders of the official story. Griffin’s book is 385 pages divided into four chapters and containing 1,209 footnotes. Without question, the book is the most thorough presentation and examination of all known facts about the 9/11 attacks. Griffin is a person who is sensitive to evidence, logic, and scientific reasoning. There is no counterpart on the official side of the story who is as fully informed on all aspects of the attacks as Griffin. At the outset, Griffin points out that the reader’s choice is between two conspiracy theories: One is that Muslim fanatics, who were not qualified to fly airplanes, defeated the security apparatus of the US and succeeded in three out of four attacks using passenger jets as weapons. The other is that security failed across the board, not merely partially but totally, because of complicity of some part of the US government. Griffin points out that there has been no independent investigation of 9/11. What we have are a report by a political commission headed by Bush administration factotum Philip Zelikow, a NIST report produced by the Bush administration’s Department of Commerce, and a journalistic account produced by Popular Mechanics. Various scientists who work for the federal government or are dependent on government grants have issued speculative statements in behalf of the official conspiracy theory, but have not produced meaningful evidence in its behalf. The relevant skeptics of the official story are approximately 100 independent researchers consisting of experts and professors whose careers have required them to deal with evidence and its analysis. Their individual contributions to 9/11 analysis can be found online. Griffin has undertaken to absorb the arguments and evidence for the official account and the arguments and evidence against it. In his latest book, which has just been released, he presents the case for the official account and its evidential failure. Polls show that 36% of Americans do not believe the official story. Setting aside the 25% of the public that is so uninformed or uninvolved as to believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attack, leaves 39% of the public who believe the official story. However, this 39% is essentially relying on the mainstream media’s endorsement of the official story. Griffin believes, perhaps naively, that truth can prevail, and it is his commitment to truth that has motivated him to shoulder the enormous task. Everyone who believes in the integrity of the US government or the Bush administration will find Griffin’s book to be disturbing. Readers will have to confront such issues as why US authorities seized the forensic evidence resulting from the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings, the attack on the Pentagon and the crashed airliner in Pennsylvania and prevented any forensic examination of any part of the 9/11 attacks. Despite widespread belief that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the attack, the evidence we have is a suspect video declared to be "bogus" by Bruce Lawrence, perhaps the leading American expert on bin Laden. The US government has never produced the promised report on bin Laden’s responsibility. When the Taliban offered to hand over bin Laden on presentation of evidence, the US government had no evidence to deliver; thus the invasion of Afghanistan. The fragility of the NIST report is astonishing. The report succeeded because people accepted its assurances without examination. Griffin shows that the Popular Mechanics report consists of special pleading, circular reasoning, appeals to the authority of the NIST report, straw men, and internal contradictions in the report itself. There is not space in a review to present the evidence Griffin has mustered. A few highlights should suffice to alert readers to the possibility that the Bush administration has lied about more than Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. The two WTC towers did not collapse. They blew up and disintegrated, as did WTC 7. There is an enormous energy deficit in every account that rules out the use of explosives. Gravitational energy is insufficient to explain the pulverization of the buildings and contents and the severing of the 47 massive center core steel columns in each of the towers into convenient lengths to be picked up and loaded onto trucks; much less can gravitational energy account for the pulverization of the top floors of the towers and ejection of steel beams hundreds of feet horizontally just prior to the disintegration of the floors below. Damage caused by airliners and short-lived limited fires cannot explain the disintegration of the buildings. The massive steel skeletons of the towers comprised a gigantic heat sink that wicked away whatever heat the limited fires produced. NIST’s final report stated that of the steel available to it for examination, "only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 degrees Celsius" (482 degrees Fahrenheit). The self-cleaning ovens in our home kitchens reach temperatures higher than this, and the ovens do not melt or deform. Steel begins to melt at 1,500 degrees C or 2,800 degrees F. Temperatures of 250 degrees C would have no effect on the strength of steel. The explanation that the buildings collapsed because fire weakened the steel is speculative. Open air fires do not produce temperatures sufficient to deprive steel of its structural integrity. Steel framed buildings have burned 22 hours in raging infernos, and the steel skeletons remained standing. The WTC fires in the towers lasted about one hour and were limited to a few floors. Moreover, it is impossible for fire to account for the sudden, total and symmetrical disintegration of powerfully constructed buildings, much less at free fall speeds that are obtainable only with controlled demolition. Griffin provides quotes from firefighters, police, and tenants, who heard and experienced a series of explosions prior to the disintegration of the towers. Such witness testimony is generally ignored by defenders of the official conspiracy theory. Molten steel was found in underground levels of the WTC buildings weeks after the buildings’ destruction. As everyone agrees that the fires did not approach the melting point of steel, a possible explanation is high explosives used in demolitions that produce 5,000 degree temperatures. The possibility that explosives were used remains unexamined except by independent researchers. Contradictions in the official conspiracy theory leap off the pages and hit the reader in the face. For example, the evidence that Flight 77, a Boeing 757, crashed into the Pentagon is the government’s claim to have obtained from the wreckage enough bodies and body parts to match the DNA for each person on the passenger list and flight crew. Simultaneously, the absence of passenger luggage, fuselage, wing and tail sections--indeed the absence of a 100,000 pound airliner--is attributed to the vaporization of the airplane due to the high speed crash and intense fire. The incompatibility of vaporized metal but recovered flesh and blood stood unnoticed until Griffin pointed it out. Another striking inconsistency in the official conspiracy theory is the difference in the impact of airliners on the Pentagon and the WTC towers. In the case of the Pentagon, the emphasis is on why the airliner caused so little damage to the building. In the case of the WTC towers, the emphasis is why the airliners caused so much damage. Perhaps it is merely a coincidence that just prior to 9/11 Cathleen P. Black, who has family connections to the CIA and Pentagon and is president of Hearst Magazines, the owner of Popular Mechanics, fired the magazine’s editor-in-chief and several senior veteran staff members and installed James B. Meigs and Benjamin Chertoff, a cousin of Bush administration factotum Michael Chertoff. It was Meigs and Benjamin Chertoff who produced the Popular Mechanics report that Griffin has eviscerated. In his conclusion Griffin reminds us that the 9/11 attack has been used to start wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, to plan an attack on Iran, to curtail constitutional protections and civil liberties in the US, to radically expand US military budgets and the power of the executive, and to enrich entrenched vested interests. Griffin is definitely correct about this regardless of whether a believable case can ever be made for the government’s version of the 9/11 conspiracy.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-63) not displayed.
.
.
.
#64. To: BeAChooser (#60)
Hahahaha...idiot! Care to put any more words into the mouths of others while you're at it?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
Don't get what? That they took the time to draw every single column and interconnecting beam in the one example and then said they wouldn't waste their time making "stick figures" showing all 47 core columns and interconnecting beams? Don't get what? That they are deliberately misleading the uninformed? Don't get what? That you're a shill?
None of you seem able to cope with the notion that Griffin has LIED to you about the facts surrounding the collapse of the towers. Hence, your behavior here.
#65. To: BeAChooser (#54)
Funny how you still don't get it.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#66. To: BeAChooser (#62)
I challenged the misleading images, now I will challenge another lie in your post. Go to the 9:45 mark of this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2179339594842383954&hl=en There's one expert who believes 7 was a controlled demolition.
It is such extreme nonsense that NOT ONE demolition expert in the world concurs with this assertion.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#67. To: Diana (#63)
I refuse to be accused of using *&^%%ing *^*%$ language about that *^%$$#%^*& *^%$ shill. ;)
....though you have the capability to incite others into using bad langauge at times.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may know peace." -Thomas Paine
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these.
- - IndieTX
- - IndieTX
#68. To: IndieTX (#67)
I refuse to be accused of using *&^%%ing *^*%$ language about that *^%$$#%^*& *^%$ shill. ;) I do admire your restraint ;P
....though you have the capability to incite others into using bad langauge at times.
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
#69. To: Diana, ALL (#63)
If she was tired of me, all she had to do was ask me to leave. It was her forum and her right. But instead she lied to create an excuse. She will not build a forum where truth, right and justice will prevail on a foundation of lies. The same goes for Freedom4um. Freedom will not begin with a lie.
That is a good question, maybe she got tired of you as she has gotten tired of others then booted them off. I agree it was not uncivil.
#70. To: Critter, ALL (#65)
That one structure had columns throughout and the other did not? That the construction of the two was significantly different? They didn't mislead. I posted what they wrote right below that figure.
Don't get what?
That they are deliberately misleading the uninformed?
#71. To: beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#62)
Or you have posters like SKYDRIFTER. Griffin has his facts together! Your ability to cut and paste bullshit articles doesn't alter that! A stopwatch says that three WTC buildings free-fell onto their own footprint; nothing alters that - as in "controlled demolition." Eat shit, and die; BAC!
#72. To: Critter, ALL (#66)
Except we were talking about the TOWERS in the discussion above. Not WTC7. That particular expert (Jowenko) is also on record saying that the TOWERS were NOT controlled demolitions. He just thought that WTC7 was, after being shown just the material that a conspiracist like you *chose* to show him. Initially, he didn't know it happened on 9/11, didn't know the the building was on fire, and didn't know that firemen had observed the building was leaning long before the collapse. We should also point out to our readers that his theory is that Silverstein decided on the spur of the moment to take WTC7 down AFTER the planes hit the towers rather than have to repair it. No government plot. And he estimated that it would take 30 to 50 people to do it in the time available. ANY evidence to suggest that 30 to 50 people arrived at the site to do this ... AFTER the impact of the planes and tower collapses? No?
It is such extreme nonsense that NOT ONE demolition expert in the world concurs with this assertion.
... snip ...
There's one expert who believes 7 was a controlled demolition.
#73. To: SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#71)
The two towers did NOT freefall.
A stopwatch says that three WTC buildings free-fell
#74. To: beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#73)
They sure as fuck did! A stopwatch says it all! What bullshit are you using, as being anything but a freefall? C'mon, asshole, let's hear it! The two towers did NOT freefall.
#75. To: SKYDRIFTER (#71)
http://911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml
"You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
#76. To: BeAChooser (#72)
There you go lying again. You insisted that no one has tried to rebut your "debunking". Well I rebutted it and now you're lying again. From the book: Your "debunking": The book talks about 3 buildings, not two. Or do you magically forget about building 7 just like the government and the main stream media? It is convenient to forget the most damning of the three demolitions, isn't it?
Except we were talking about the TOWERS in the discussion above. Not WTC7.
Fourth, the collapses of these three buildings all manifested many standard features of the kind of controlled demolition known as “implosion,”
This is sheer nonsense. It is such extreme nonsense that NOT ONE demolition expert in the world concurs with this assertion.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#77. To: BeAChooser (#73)
LIAR you really are evil.
The two towers did NOT freefall.
#78. To: BeAChooser (#70)
They did mislead. They acurately represented the other type of structure and inaccurately represented the towers, using the EXCUSE about not wanting to create a stick figure. Well they created one already, why would creating a stick figure for the towers be such a big deal? If they didn't want to create a stick figure, why did they draw all of the columns and interconnecting beams for the other type of structure? They are LIARS!!!
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#79. To: SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#74)
And what do you claim the collapse times of WTC1 and WTC2 are?
The two towers did NOT freefall.
They sure as fuck did!
#80. To: BeAChooser (#79)
Be careful BAC. IMO, lies like yours caused Tony Snow to relapse. Professional political spinning (lies) is dangerous to ones health. ROTFLM (recently checked and healthy)AO
#81. To: beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#79)
And what do you claim the collapse times of WTC1 and WTC2 are? Less than 20 seconds - that's a "free-fall!" C'mon, BAC, you asshole; account for the timing - whatever figures YOU want to use! Don't answer a question with a question, this time!
#82. To: BeAChooser (#79)
Close enough to freefall for the 80 or 90 stories below the impact zlone to have put up little or no resistance. Let's give you the benefit of the doubt for a second. Let's say it took 15 seconds to collapse a tower. And lets say that 10 seconds is freefall in a vacuum. So it took 5 seconds to overcome 90 floors worth of resistance? So your contention is that it took on average less than six one hundredths of a second to overcome each floor? Are you really that ignorant, that you can believe that a gravitational collapse had the energy to overcome 90 floors (INCLUDING core and perimeter columns) in less than 6/100ths of a second for each floor? The actual figure would be 55/1000ths or 5.5/100ths. I'd really like to know what kind of drugs you guys take. Oh yeah, you official fairy tale believers like to say that the ejection of the debris up to 300 feet or more to the side of the buildings was the result of trapped air being compressed and then released as the floors came down. So not only does the collapse have to overcome the resistance of the floors, but also compress the air and blow out the debris in that same 55/1000ths of a second. At this point, any sane person would be feeling really dumb for believing the fairy tale to begin with, so are you sane and feeling dumb, or are you a shill?
And what do you claim the collapse times of WTC1 and WTC2 are?
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#83. To: Itisa1mosttoolate, SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#75)
Too bad the assertion made in your link is based on a false premise, IATL. It claims: No, it is not. It is a misstatement by some Senate staffer who apparently didn't understand what he/she was being told. And the conspiracists who spent a lot of time putting together that website you linked would know this if they'd done even a modicum of research ... if they'd even listened to some of the conspiracy sites out there. The truth is that the two towers each took about 15 seconds to fully collapse. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/freefall.html "It is widely accepted that both Towers completely fell (nearly everything but the dust reached the ground) in around ten seconds. This estimate appears to be based mainly on seismic data. However, video evidence of the North Tower collapse suggests that it took close to 15 seconds for the destruction to reach the ground. ... snip ... Despite the availability of detailed studies of collapse times based on the compositing of video and photographic evidence, and in-depth analysis of the seismic records, many commentors have incorrectly treated the durations of the largest seismic signals as synonymous with total collapse times. Statements that the Towers fell in eight and ten seconds have been repeated by both proponents and critics of the official explanation." http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/reynolds/ "video recordings show that each collapse took approximately 15 seconds. See, for example, this elapsed time analysis of the North Tower collapse." The fact is that it took about 10 seconds just for the first pieces of the outer shell to reach the ground. Images like these from the south tower: clearly show that material was falling well ahead of the collapsing level. That would not be the case if the collapsing level was free-falling as you claim. And surely what NIST has said would be the "official" government number. And here is what NIST has CLEARLY stated: "NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2." Now surely you understand what is meant by FIRST EXTERIOR PANELS. Surely ... And here is more to discredit what your link claims. (http://www.seekinglight.net/911vis/rwtchtm.htm) says Jim Hoffman (another conspiracist) states that "Each of the Twin Towers totally collapsed in an interval of approximately 14 to 16 seconds." It goes on to quote Hoffman saying "Despite the availability of video evidence establishing lower bounds of total collapse times of over 13 seconds for each of the towers, assertions that they collapsed in under ten seconds are widespread." Here is another except from the 911research link: "The top of the North Tower began to suddenly telescope about a fourth of a second after the radio tower started to fall. In views from the north the top is swallowed up in about two seconds. The CNN live video clip shows the mushrooming dust cloud reaching the ground at about 13 seconds. ... The CNN video suggests that it takes about ten seconds for the bottom of the mushrooming dust cloud to reach the ground, and another seven or so for the top to reach the ground." Surely you aren't claiming the above sources are run by traitors. Some are part of the conspiracy movement. And surely you aren't claiming that structural engineers or physicists around the world don't know the physics and can't do the math? That they wouldn't see what you claim is obvious? Because NOT ONE anywhere in the world has come forward to support your assertion. Now, as you've done many times before, I expect you to ignore what I just posted. But I'll try one more time. Take a look at these photos of the North Tower collapse: Focus on the large chunks of outer surface aluminum seen in the photos falling and trailing dust. It is clear from these photos that these chunks of structure are well ahead of the collapsing level. You can see still intact tower high above them. It is clear from earlier photos of the beginning of the collapse that these chunks of structure first ejected horizontally from the building (with little in the way of a vertical component to the velocity). Thus, any vertical velocity must be due to only gravitational effects. And mind you, those chunks of structure are subject to the effects of air and terminal velocity. They might not have even reached the peak velocity that is possible in a vacuum. Yet, they are still far ahead of the collapsing level. So how in the world can ANYONE rational claim the structure completely collapsed within 10 seconds? In fact, this source (a conspiracy source, by the way) states that this image: was taken "11 seconds into the collapse". Notice how much of the tower is still standing? So when are you folks finally going to give up on this silly assertion? Will you ever? Or will you simply go on discrediting yourselves, this forum and the "truth movement"?
http://911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml
On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds. Here is the exact quote: "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". That's the government's official number.
#84. To: BeAChooser (#83)
Focus. Think about what you want to say and deal with that single point - and only that single point. Bevity and clarity are important to good communication. Hiding behind mindless spam this way is silly. People just scroll past the sort of drek you posted above.
.
#85. To: Critter, ALL (#76)
My only comments on this thread have concerned Griffin's claims about the two TOWERS and the pentagon damage. And you've offered NOTHING to convince folks that what Griffin claims about the two TOWERS and the Pentagon damage is correct. No, what you do is throw out a red herring and hope the gullible go after it.
"Except we were talking about the TOWERS in the discussion above. Not WTC7."
There you go lying again.
#86. To: christine, ALL (#77)
Explain to us what you see in this photo, christine. It came from a conspiracy website and was accompanied by the caption that it was taken "11 seconds into the collapse". You tell me why I'm evil for suggesting those claiming the collapse was free-fall are wrong. Go ahead...
"The two towers did NOT freefall."
LIAR
you really are evil.
#87. To: Critter, ALL (#78)
ROTFLOL! Your desperation is showing, critter.
They are LIARS!!!
#88. To: BeAChooser (#85)
I quoted your post where you quote Griffin saying 3 buildings fell exhibiting signs of controlled demolition. Your post which I quoted also said that no expert in the world agrees. Did you not post that comment in response to Griffin's claim? Caught you lying yet again. Do you ever get tired of being a liar?
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#89. To: BeAChooser (#85)
Sort of like you with the Ron Brown thing huh? The goob fooler machine tossed out the Ron Brown conspiracy theory and you gobbled it right up. And then spent years of your life making a laughing stock of yourself over it. Why don't you quote us some NewsMax on the subject? It's a dull day and watching kooks is funny.
No, what you do is throw out a red herring and hope the gullible go after it.
.
#90. To: SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#81)
Now that's really funny coming from a pilot. Or should I say EX-pilot?
Less than 20 seconds - that's a "free-fall!"
#91. To: BeAChooser, Christine (#90)
Is this the best you can do? Repeatedly tossing out very vile personal attacks against the members of this forum? This seems to be a constant MO of yours.
Or should I say EX-pilot?
.
#92. To: BeAChooser (#87)
My desperation? LMFAO!!!! You get caught in lie after lie and post more lies ina desperate attempt to cover your previous lies and I am desperate? ROFLMAOPIMP!!!!!
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#93. To: BeAChooser (#86)
Mr. angry white male. I think it's time to turn off the 'puter until you get a grip on your emotions. Why don't you take a break and come back when you are able to behave in a civil manner? This isn't FreeRepublic and you can't act like an animal here.
.
#94. To: Critter, ALL (#82)
You don't have to give me the benefit of the doubt. All you have to do is look at pictures that have been around for 5 YEARS. Well first of all, portions of the core were actually still standing after those 15 seconds. And secondly, "are you really that ignorant, that you can believe" all the structural engineers and macro-world physicists in the world haven't noticed by now what you claim is *obvious*? I suspect they understand something you do not. Same drugs as all those professional designing every structure we use in the world. http://www.911myths.com/html/explosive_force.html "How fast would it have to be thrown to cover this 390 foot distance? If the beam came from the 90th floor of WTC1, that would put it 1119 feet up. The debris hit around half way up WFC 3, we’ll call that 369 feet for convenience: that’s a fall of 750 feet. Freefall from that height gives the debris around 6.83 seconds to travel through the air, meaning it would need to average a horizontal velocity of 57.1 feet per second, or 38.94 miles per hour. Is this possible? The following analysis, emailed to us, suggests so, even though later comments suggest it originated with someone sceptical of the official story." Now you'll have to visit that site to see that analysis. Will you? Are all the structural engineers, demolition experts and macro-world physicists in the world? Because they apparently agree with ME.
Let's give you the benefit of the doubt for a second.
Are you really that ignorant, that you can believe that a gravitational collapse had the energy to overcome 90 floors (INCLUDING core and perimeter columns) in less than 6/100ths of a second for each floor?
I'd really like to know what kind of drugs you guys take.
Oh yeah, you official fairy tale believers like to say that the ejection of the debris up to 300 feet or more to the side of the buildings was the result of trapped air being compressed and then released as the floors came down.
At this point, any sane person would be feeling really dumb for believing the fairy tale to begin with, so are you sane and feeling dumb, or are you a shill?
#95. To: ..., ALL (#84)
Tell you what ... You look at this single photo, which 911research.wtc7.net says was taken "11 seconds into the collapse", and tell us why you think the WTC towers collapsed at free-fall velocity. Let's see how you do when it comes to brevity and clarity. ROTFLOL!
Bevity and clarity are important to good communication.
#96. To: BeAChooser (#94)
Again ... let me suggest that you focus on what you want to say before hitting the post button. Try reading your post and deleting off topic references. If it won't fit in the browser window, people are probably not going to read it.
.
#97. To: BeAChooser (#95)
Why? It doesn't concern me. But you know that. The fact that you toss out this red herring tells me that I hit a nerve by commenting on your silly spam.
You look at this single photo, which http://911research.wtc7.net says was taken "11 seconds into the collapse",
.
#98. To: BeAChooser (#95)
Are you capable of anything beyond these silly personal attacks and your mornic rudeness?
.
#99. To: ..., ALL (#91)
That's not a vile personal attack. It's an observation about an established FACT. It would be like you saying I'm an ex-pilot ... if you actually knew that to be the case. I am curious what I did to you in the past that's led to this verbal assault of yours on thread after thread. You obviously have no interest in actually debating the issues that are being raised. You just want to taunt me. Which leads one to wonder about your motivation. What did I do to you in some previous exchange to cause such impassioned dislike of me? We must have conversed. But I know I've never met a poster named ... prior to joining 4um. Thus, you must have had a different screen name when we had that prior exchange. Care to tell us what that was???
Repeatedly tossing out very vile personal attacks against the members of this forum?
#100. To: BeAChooser, christine, SKYDRIFTER (#86)
Don't waste your time on this POS. Yeah, Freak, you are a POS. You're a Ziojew, aren't you? Your arrogance is only matched by the worst of the lying Zios like William Kristol.
#101. To: BeAChooser, Christine (#99)
It is a very obvious personal attack and you know it. Your dishonst spinning after the fact doesn't mitigate it. You can't get away with that shit here.
That's not a vile personal attack. It's an observation about an established FACT. It would be like you saying I'm an ex-pilot ... if you actually knew that to be the case.
.
#102. To: BeAChooser (#99)
You are wondering why I point out what a dishonest idiot you are. That's just my job. That's all you need to know.
.
#103. To: Nostalgia, ALL (#100)
Thank you for demonstrating the underlying nature of Freedom4um for anyone that might chance upon this site.
Don't waste your time on this POS. Yeah, Freak, you are a POS. You're a Ziojew, aren't you?
#104. To: BeAChooser (#103) (Edited)
If you were not Jewish, you would have simply said "I'm not Jewish". At least that's the way it goes in my experience. Is that why you work so hard at getting the US involved in Middle East conflicts?
.
.
.
.
Comments (105 - 178) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest