Utopia Temple
Main Forum Page Register an Account for Free! Calendar Frequently Asked Questions about this Board View New Posts Advanced Search Login
  Utopia Temple Forums > General Discussions > Respectable General Discussions

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Post New Thread Reply
Author Thread
Posts: 1907/7006
(07-Apr-2006 at 14:31)


Re: 9/11 Documentary

Originally Posted by filcher:
I wonder exactly what is the theory here if not an airplane? That a missile hit the pentagon? Does this not open up more questions? How do you explain the eyewitnesses who reported seeing an airplane, not a missile?
Could the wings have remained attached due to hydraulic hoses and wirings, even after metal struts had broken off, and after folding in against the fuselage, been pulled inside the Pentagon? While I find it unlikely, not being acquainted with aircraft construction I would not know for sure.

Scroll up, read my prvious posts. particularly the one that says

Quote:
Ditto with the Pentagon. Yes, the lack of debris is suprising when you compare it with the Concorde that came down in France for instance, but if the Pentagon wasn't hit by Flight 77 where did that flight go? Over 100 eyewitnesses saw the airliner hit, so once again: why do we need a conspiracy here?

I don't think the public are being given the whole truth here, but that doesn't add up to a huge conspiracy.
I don't believe the Snopes Incredible Flapping Wings theory, but why do you leap from that to not believing any plane at all hit the pentagon?
#41  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Former Global Moderator)
Research Group
Posts: 4820/5374
(07-Apr-2006 at 15:04)


Re: 9/11 Documentary

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason:
I don't believe the Snopes Incredible Flapping Wings theory, but why do you leap from that to not believing any plane at all hit the pentagon?
I don't see why it's so difficult to beleive that. You've got a split second worth of time where the fuselage is slowed down in comparison to the wings. Is that really enough time for the wings to snap full forward? I don't find that feasible. You've got the split second where they're moving faster than the plane, and then the next few seconds where the plane is penetrating deep into the Pentagon. I don't find it hard to believe that they folded up aft and were dragged along with the rest of the fuselage.

If not that plane though, what else was it?

The Kiowa swooped and banked hard in front of the car, firing three more shots through the front hood, the universal sign for “stop.”
There are two important rules for sucess in life.
1. Never tell anyone everything you know.
#42  
View Public Profile Visit Hawkeyekid's homepage Find more posts by Hawkeyekid Add Hawkeyekid to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1549/3983
(07-Apr-2006 at 17:19)


Re: 9/11 Documentary

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason:
Scroll up, read my prvious posts. particularly the one that says

I don't believe the Snopes Incredible Flapping Wings theory, but why do you leap from that to not believing any plane at all hit the pentagon?
I thought you were arguing it wasn't a plane that hit, because they couldn't find the wings.
Something apparently hit the Pentagon, and it was far more probably a plane than anything else, taking into account eyewitness accounts.
I find it strange this debate is carried on over the Pentagon incident. In my opinion it is the weakest part of the theory, and the part most referred to by those that believe the official story, to show the conspiracy theorists are wingnuts.

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
#43  
View Public Profile Find more posts by filcher Add filcher to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Falis4)
Posts: 164/611
(07-Apr-2006 at 20:06)


Re: 9/11 Documentary

Originally Posted by filcher:
I thought you were arguing it wasn't a plane that hit, because they couldn't find the wings.
Something apparently hit the Pentagon, and it was far more probably a plane than anything else, taking into account eyewitness accounts.
I find it strange this debate is carried on over the Pentagon incident. In my opinion it is the weakest part of the theory, and the part most referred to by those that believe the official story, to show the conspiracy theorists are wingnuts.
People saw a plane yes but did they see it crashing into the pentagon? The documentary states that there were 2 planes in the sky or something like that during that time althought no planes were allowed to be on air at that time. There could have been a plane or even a drone shooting a missile and flying away. People then ment to have seen a plane and from what they have heared it changed to that they had seen a plane crashing into the pentagon.

[Holy Qur'an (Surah Al-Furqan; the Criterion]
Blessed is He who sent down the criterion to His servant, that it may be an admonition to all creatures (25:1)
But the misbelievers say: "Naught is this but a lie which he has forged [...] (25:4)
#44  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Armitage Add Armitage to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1553/3983
(07-Apr-2006 at 21:03)


Re: 9/11 Documentary

Originally Posted by Falis4:
People saw a plane yes but did they see it crashing into the pentagon? The documentary states that there were 2 planes in the sky or something like that during that time althought no planes were allowed to be on air at that time. There could have been a plane or even a drone shooting a missile and flying away. People then ment to have seen a plane and from what they have heared it changed to that they had seen a plane crashing into the pentagon.
That they saw a plane is fine, but did they see a missile? I would think there is a fundamental difference between a passenger plane and a drone (or a missile), so what did they see, or claim they saw? a passenger plane or a missile?
IIRC at the time, while they did not claim to see the plane strike the Pentagon, they also claimed it was a plane that flew low overhead seconds before the crash.

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
#45  
View Public Profile Find more posts by filcher Add filcher to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1908/7006
(08-Apr-2006 at 09:52)


Quote:
You've got a split second worth of time where the fuselage is slowed down in comparison to the wings. Is that really enough time for the wings to snap full forward? I don't find that feasible.
Why do so many people just rattle out answers without bothering to read anything that has been said before?

Scroll up HE, read my previous posts, particularly the one that said:-

Quote:
this plane was travelling at between 350 and 500 mph, depending which account you read. How fast do you think an aircraft wing can fold?

The only way the Snopes theory could work is if the wings folded instantly, or the aircraft paused while the wings folded neatly alongside the pilots cockpit so they could go through the same hole as the fuselage.


Quote:
I don't find it hard to believe that they folded up aft and were dragged along with the rest of the fuselage.
Why should they do that instead of just breaking off? Can you show an example of an aircraft folding it wings backwards and dragging them along? I can show you plenty of examples of aircraft wings snapping off.....

Aircraft wings usually have some big, heavy, engines fastened to them. When the aircraft hits something, the momentum in those engines (and their own thrust if they are still running) tears them off along with a big junk of wing, so the wing falls off.

If the wings fall off hitting the ground, then you will have to come up with a bloody good reason why the wings on the Pentagon plane are so special that:-
A) The engines remained attached.
B) the wings remained attached to the fuselage strongly enough to be dragged through a hole, towing a couple of big, heavy engines behind them.



Quote:
People saw a plane yes but did they see it crashing into the pentagon? The documentary states that there were 2 planes in the sky or something like that during that time althought no planes were allowed to be on air at that time. There could have been a plane or even a drone shooting a missile and flying away. People then ment to have seen a plane and from what they have heared it changed to that they had seen a plane crashing into the pentagon.
Great. So where, exactly, did Flight 77 go? Where did it land, and why aren't the entire flight crew and all the passengers on the plane jumping up and down and saying " Hey guys! We didn't hit the Pentagon! We are all here, alive!"
#46  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Research Group
Posts: 744/1167
Donated $3.24
(08-Apr-2006 at 10:53)


did anyone else notice that when Loose Change was quoting a woman who saw a white aircraft fly overhead slightly before the crash of Flight 93 sounded suspiciously like an A10-Warthog?

the quote:
"it had two rear engines. A big fin on the back like the spoiler on the back of a car and with two upright fins at the side"
Attached Images
File Type: jpg A-10%201.jpg (53.9 KB, 8 views)

caution: this post may appear more intelligent and insightful than it actually is
all posts made by the above person should be considered a direct insult to your intelligence
if you don't like what we tell you to believe in, we'll kill you - President George Bush
#47  
View Public Profile Visit Duo Maxwell's homepage Find more posts by Duo Maxwell Add Duo Maxwell to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Falis4)
Posts: 165/611
(08-Apr-2006 at 10:59)


Re: 9/11 Documentary

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason:
Great. So where, exactly, did Flight 77 go? Where did it land, and why aren't the entire flight crew and all the passengers on the plane jumping up and down and saying " Hey guys! We didn't hit the Pentagon! We are all here, alive!"
I have no idea. I wouldnt find it difficult to keep the people quite by paying them alot! of money for their silence and persuade them it was needed for national security. However many people are asking the same question.

[Holy Qur'an (Surah Al-Furqan; the Criterion]
Blessed is He who sent down the criterion to His servant, that it may be an admonition to all creatures (25:1)
But the misbelievers say: "Naught is this but a lie which he has forged [...] (25:4)
#48  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Armitage Add Armitage to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1573/2397
(08-Apr-2006 at 12:39)


Re: 9/11 Documentary

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason:
Great. So where, exactly, did Flight 77 go? Where did it land, and why aren't the entire flight crew and all the passengers on the plane jumping up and down and saying " Hey guys! We didn't hit the Pentagon! We are all here, alive!"
If you truely believe the conspiracy (which I don't) that the US did all this. They attacked the WTC and Pentagon, is it hard to believe they killed the passangers on flight 77? took them to some remote site and shot them all...?

NOTE: I do NOT think this is what happend, but if you want to believe in a conspiracy that's as good as anything else.
#49  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Largoi Add Largoi to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1561/3983
(08-Apr-2006 at 19:00)


Re: 9/11 Documentary

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason:
Great. So where, exactly, did Flight 77 go? Where did it land, and why aren't the entire flight crew and all the passengers on the plane jumping up and down and saying " Hey guys! We didn't hit the Pentagon! We are all here, alive!"
As you seem to be arguing against the theory of a plane hitting the Penatgon, where did the passengers go?
While it is unlikely, the wings could have either been dragged in or simply rolled and bounced into the hole. That it defies what we would expect to happen in this scenario does not mean it didn't happen.
It seems likely, despite the fact there is a problem with little wing debris, that a plane did hit the Pentagon. Why is this less likely to have happened than 2 hitting the WTC?

Quote:
did anyone else notice that when Loose Change was quoting a woman who saw a white aircraft fly overhead slightly before the crash of Flight 93 sounded suspiciously like an A10-Warthog?
What would be the significance of a A10 Warthog in the area?

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
#50  
View Public Profile Find more posts by filcher Add filcher to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Research Group
Posts: 746/1167
Donated $3.24
(09-Apr-2006 at 05:48)


Re: 9/11 Documentary

Originally Posted by filcher:
What would be the significance of a A10 Warthog in the area?
My point about the A-10 Warthog was that that it pretty much exactly what this woman described. However I find it considerably difficult to imagine it being used effectivly for anthing other than CAS.

Air Traffic Controllers in a Nashua Telegraph actually reported a military aircraft that was circling Flight 93 and was within visual range before the crash. The FBI told the Air Traffic Controllers not to talk to anyone about it under threat of prosecution.

The significance of the actions of white mystery plane is that someone would of seen what actually happened to Flight 93. The actions IMO seem to point to it being a chase plane.

Many people have suggested that the mystery jet was possibly a Cessna Citations, used by US Customs. Which if true, would of probably recorded the event.

The Cessna's used by US Customs are white and usually unmarked, they are loaded with video equiptment and flown by military pilots whom can fly very low fast or slow or very high and very fast. It would have been recording on it's cameras and videotaped the incident.

but who knows. we probably won't ever really find out what happened that day. Maybe in 10 or 20 years time someone will come out and reveal some kind of evidence that will reopen the whole debate of 'who dun it'.

caution: this post may appear more intelligent and insightful than it actually is
all posts made by the above person should be considered a direct insult to your intelligence
if you don't like what we tell you to believe in, we'll kill you - President George Bush
#51  
View Public Profile Visit Duo Maxwell's homepage Find more posts by Duo Maxwell Add Duo Maxwell to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1565/3983
(09-Apr-2006 at 06:26)


Quote:
The significance of the actions of white mystery plane is that someone would of seen what actually happened to Flight 93. The actions IMO seem to point to it being a chase plane.
Thanks for your response.
It is interesing if it was a chase plane, that it would be there but the USAF would not. If this was true, and film of what happened at the Pentagon was found to be in possession of it, would it not cause more problems than it would answer?

Quote:
but who knows. we probably won't ever really find out what happened that day. Maybe in 10 or 20 years time someone will come out and reveal some kind of evidence that will reopen the whole debate of 'who dun it'.
Until that time, we will continue to hear ever increasing theories and accusations about what happened on Sept 9. While the official stance should be questioned on inconsistensies, it is necessary to consider what theories are believable and what aren't.
Case in the point is the theory that George Bush, the Father of Dubya, was the secret assassin of JF Kennedy (on the knoll).

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
#52  
View Public Profile Find more posts by filcher Add filcher to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1207/2825
(09-Apr-2006 at 07:54)


Re: 9/11 Documentary

Originally Posted by Falis4:
People saw a plane yes but did they see it crashing into the pentagon? The documentary states that there were 2 planes in the sky or something like that during that time althought no planes were allowed to be on air at that time. There could have been a plane or even a drone shooting a missile and flying away. People then ment to have seen a plane and from what they have heared it changed to that they had seen a plane crashing into the pentagon.
Sorry but this conspiracy is just too stupid.And thats saying a lot considering the crazy theories i have read during the years.Why would anybody bother with such a complicated plan like making a whole plane disapear and hitting the pentagon with something else instead of simply ramming the plane like it realy hapened?

The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common; they don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit the views
#53  
View Public Profile Find more posts by DHoffryn Add DHoffryn to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1568/3983
(09-Apr-2006 at 08:32)


Re: 9/11 Documentary

Originally Posted by DHoffryn:
Sorry but this conspiracy is just too stupid.And thats saying a lot considering the crazy theories i have read during the years.Why would anybody bother with such a complicated plan like making a whole plane disapear and hitting the pentagon with something else instead of simply ramming the plane like it realy hapened?
There are two reasons I can think of:
First easier to use a missile than get a pilot to fly into the building
Second you do not have to destroy a very expensive plane.

The passengers could be gotten rid of in various ways.
It still is simply easier to let the terrorists continue wih their plans and allow them to it, while the government did nothing to stop them.
Speaking of which, does anyone have any links to what the insurance companies investigation disclosed about this plane? I would think they were able to view wreckage after it was removed from Pentagon.

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
#54  
View Public Profile Find more posts by filcher Add filcher to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6567/8194
(09-Apr-2006 at 09:06)
Re: 9/11 Documentary

Originally Posted by filcher:
There are two reasons I can think of:
First easier to use a missile than get a pilot to fly into the building
If you want to make sure not to get caught it is even simpler to just use the autopilot on the plane. Modern planes can more or less fly themselves and would be easy to modify for remote control. Keep in mind that you never can be sure who is a witness and happen to have a video camera present. It's also very hard to make a missile strike look even remotely like a plane crash. (Yeah, I know. Some think what happened didn't look like a plane crash either). I don't see how a missile could have done so much damage to the outer wall while still penetrating several rings inwards.
Quote:
Second you do not have to destroy a very expensive plane.
Sure you do! It would be very embarassing if the plane turned up after it supposedly was destroyed. There are far too many pieces on a plane that has serial numbers that are checked (so that they can get proper maintenance) for a ghost plane to just appear.
Quote:
The passengers could be gotten rid of in various ways.
Such as having them sit in the plane where they were supposed to be while the plane crashed into the building where it supposedly did crash
Quote:
It still is simply easier to let the terrorists continue wih their plans and allow them to it, while the government did nothing to stop them.
Various theories about who knew what and when are a lot more plausible, or at least a lot harder to debunk. There still are speculations about what Roosevelt knew before Pearl Harbor.
Quote:
Speaking of which, does anyone have any links to what the insurance companies investigation disclosed about this plane? I would think they were able to view wreckage after it was removed from Pentagon.
Not only the insurance company, but lots of firemen, construction workers etc were at the scene afterwards. It would have to be an extremely complex conspiracy to work.
#55  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Bernel Add Bernel to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1569/3983
(09-Apr-2006 at 09:25)


Re: 9/11 Documentary

Originally Posted by Bernel:
If you want to make sure not to get caught it is even simpler to just use the autopilot on the plane. Modern planes can more or less fly themselves and would be easy to modify for remote control. Keep in mind that you never can be sure who is a witness and happen to have a video camera present. It's also very hard to make a missile strike look even remotely like a plane crash. (Yeah, I know. Some think what happened didn't look like a plane crash either). I don't see how a missile could have done so much damage to the outer wall while still penetrating several rings inwards.
On the Break.com site there is a short video of a computer flown plane during test trials.
While remote control and computer control are not the same, I still understand it would be quite difficult to accurately fly a passenger jet into a building in the fashion it was done to the Pentagon. I think it would be easier to allow the terrorists the chance to do the damage for them.
It is far easier and neater and easier to prove.

Sure you do! It would be very embarassing if the plane turned up after it supposedly was destroyed. There are far too many pieces on a plane that has serial numbers that are checked (so that they can get proper maintenance) for a ghost plane to just appear.

I was being thick again, thinking of ships that are supposedly lost only to appear years later in different shipping fleets. Planes have far more maintenance checks, and this one in particular would be watched for, or noticed.

Quote:
Such as having them sit in the plane where they were supposed to be while the plane crashed into the building where it supposedly did crash
My belief also..
Unfortunately not everyone will accept the logical answers.
It still leaves an awful lot of questions that have not been properly answered as far as the WTC, however.

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
#56  
View Public Profile Find more posts by filcher Add filcher to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 325/338
(10-Apr-2006 at 03:23)


sorry a little off topic now, but in one of the documentarys (i forget which one), they have engeneers on it, explaining that steel melts at 2000 degrees fahrenheit. But wait, the steel also had fire retardant on it, which means it melts now at 3000 degrees fahrenheit... but wait, wasn't the fire ratardant suposed to be ripped off of the steel? So what... jet fule's maximum temperature is 1000 degrees fahrenheit... 1000 less then just plane steel and 2000 less then fire retardant steel. But wait, there's more! 1000 degrees fahrenheit is the MAXIMUm temperature that jet fule burns... but wait, the twin towers wern't purfect test places, so most likely the jet fuled burned at a much lower temperature (and as the engeneers in said documentary says, the jet fule most likely burned at sloser to 300 degrees fahrenheit...) 300 degrees fahrenheit that's kind of low isn't it? Especially if it melts steel... which is suposed to melt at 1700 degrees fahrenheit higher(or 2700 degrees if the fire retardant wasn't removed); that's a very large differance.

Sygnal's super cool, I want to have his babies!
Sygnal's my man!
#57  
View Public Profile Find more posts by aFool Add aFool to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(User is Banned)
Posts: 1490/1664
Donated $2.04
(10-Apr-2006 at 04:24)
Re: 9/11 Documentary

Originally Posted by aFool:
sorry a little off topic now, but in one of the documentarys (i forget which one), they have engeneers on it, explaining that steel melts at 2000 degrees fahrenheit. But wait, the steel also had fire retardant on it, which means it melts now at 3000 degrees fahrenheit... but wait, wasn't the fire ratardant suposed to be ripped off of the steel? So what... jet fule's maximum temperature is 1000 degrees fahrenheit... 1000 less then just plane steel and 2000 less then fire retardant steel. But wait, there's more! 1000 degrees fahrenheit is the MAXIMUm temperature that jet fule burns... but wait, the twin towers wern't purfect test places, so most likely the jet fuled burned at a much lower temperature (and as the engeneers in said documentary says, the jet fule most likely burned at sloser to 300 degrees fahrenheit...) 300 degrees fahrenheit that's kind of low isn't it? Especially if it melts steel... which is suposed to melt at 1700 degrees fahrenheit higher(or 2700 degrees if the fire retardant wasn't removed); that's a very large differance.
You don't have to melt the steel to liquid. You just have to heat the remainder of the steel beams (many of which are probably already damaged) till the integrity of the beams is no longer capable of supporting the higher floors.

These conspiracies sort of remind me of creationism. Proponents of these theories try to cast doubt on a hand full of elements of the story (generally with no background in the field). Then replace them with theories/scenarios that have even less supporting evidence. Generally to push their own agenda (e.g. Muslims couldn’t have been responsible, the US is evil, there is a global capitalist conspiracy, etc.)
#58  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Kazac Add Kazac to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 328/338
(10-Apr-2006 at 04:33)


Re: 9/11 Documentary

Originally Posted by Kazac:
You don't have to melt the steel to liquid. You just have to heat the remainder of the steel beams (many of which are probably already damaged) till the integrity of the beams is no longer capable of supporting the higher floors.

These conspiracies sort of remind me of creationism. Proponents of these theories try to cast doubt on a hand full of elements of the story (generally with no background in the field). Then replace them with theories/scenarios that have even less supporting evidence. Generally to push their own agenda (e.g. Muslims couldn’t have been responsible, the US is evil, there is a global capitalist conspiracy, etc.)
you forget that the twin towers were certified to withstand a dirrect hit by a plane. And that 90% of the fule exploded out side of the towers( if u look at the movies, you see a hige explotion as the plane hits the towers, out side, not inside the towers.) Plus the official report said the intense heat from the fire melted the steel... Plus i gurantee a heat of 300 degrees fahrenheit will not lower the integrity of the beams ment to with stand heats of upto 3000 degrees fahrenheit... its ment to withstand heats 10 times higher... now if they cannot withstand 300 degrees fahrenheit then how the hell were they certified to withstand a direct hit from a plane? and then second, how did things around the hole that the "plane" that hit the pentagon made, has papers and computer monitors, and wooden furniture intact, when it would create the same intense heat that destroyed the integrety of the beams in the world trade centers???

Sygnal's super cool, I want to have his babies!
Sygnal's my man!
#59  
View Public Profile Find more posts by aFool Add aFool to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1909/7006
(10-Apr-2006 at 04:37)


Quote:
As you seem to be arguing against the theory of a plane hitting the Penatgon, where did the passengers go?
Seriously Filcher, are you actually reading my posts or just blabbering answers without thinking about it?

If you think i am arguing against a plane hitting the Pentagin, then go back and quote the post in which I say that. I can give you plenty of quotes where I say that a plane did hit the Pentagon - including the one you are responding to!


Quote:
It seems likely, despite the fact there is a problem with little wing debris, that a plane did hit the Pentagon. Why is this less likely to have happened than 2 hitting the WTC?
Have I ever said it is less likely than planes hitting WTC?

I am very curious about the lack of debris though. The Snopes flapping wing theory is so improbable that it can be dismissed, so where did all the wreckage go? I could possibly accept the fuselage being inside the Pentagon, and maybe the engines, but not the wings or tail assembly.
#60  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump:

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
General Discussion on the 9/11 Incident Majestic Vraak Respectable General Discussions 16 16-Aug-2004 05:05
Iran next? 9/11 Commision finds Iran-Al Qaeda ties SniperWolf Respectable General Discussions 30 13-Aug-2004 03:02
Bush adds are exploiting 9/11 for political ends Jean831112 Respectable General Discussions 115 08-Mar-2004 01:10
Bush Senior Met With Bin Laden's Brother on 9/11 rormc Respectable General Discussions 28 19-Feb-2004 13:52
Terrorism before 9/11.... kdogg7 Respectable General Discussions 40 19-Sep-2003 07:17


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 13:26.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright © Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.