Former Utah Congressman is a Fruitloop
The Troofers are patting themselves on the back over this, but the guy is well-known to be a couple fries short of a happy meal.
Two years ago, Cook was briefly banned from state GOP headquarters after a foul-mouthed tirade days before the November election. Soon after he won his second term, Cook fired chief of staff Janet Jenson, who accused him of delusional behavior.
''Merrill has taken up permanent residence in whacko land,'' Jenson wrote in an office e-mail. ''If he asks you to fax his underwear to the speaker's office, please just do it.''
Labels: Merrill Cook
posted by Pat @ 11:37 AM
58 comments
58 Comments:
SLC = regurgitation. You should pay WAC a fee or something.
PSYCHO DEBUNKER CULTIST AND RACIST TROY SEXTON GOES OVER THE EDGE.FILMS SELF ABUSING CHILDREN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JwE_uHVR6c
The Troofers are patting themselves on the back over this, but the guy is well-known to be a couple fries short of a happy meal.
Amazing how every prominent person (and there sure are more than quite a few of them)who even ask questions about the 9/11 mythology is branded a kook by you kooks in here.
As Jesse Ventura has asked, "why if you question anything about 9/11you get attacked?"
Perhaps if the official bodies that have been enpaneled to answer that questions had answered ALL the questions in some plausible way that makes sense...but they have not...
The number of people who are rejecting those reports is pretty significant.
You can name call all you want but this issue is not going away.
Amazing how every prominent person (and there sure are more than quite a few of them)who even ask questions about the 9/11 mythology
What prominent people? Alex Jones? Jesse Ventura? Doyle and McIlvaine? The Jersey Girls? Charlie Sheen? That Fujita guy from Japan? The same "prominent people" we've been hearing about for years now, who represent an irrelevant percentage of society?
is branded a kook by you kooks in here.
No, he was branded a kook because he is a kook. Just look at his other kooky behavior, which was adequately supported in he OP.
The number of people who are rejecting those reports is pretty significant.
Yeah -- you're up to "Anonymous #2" on this board. Congratulations. Call me when you get enough people to have a meeting.
You can name call all you want but this issue is not going away.
Oh, I agree -- mental illness, gullibility, and stupidity are not going away.
Your retorts are pretty shallow, don't you think?
Go to PatriotsQuestion....there are an incredible numbe of prominent people questioning TOS.
You're all wt and you know it. All you got is name calling which is the surest sign you have nothing.
What prominent people? Alex Jones? Jesse Ventura? Doyle and McIlvaine? The Jersey Girls? Charlie Sheen? That Fujita guy from Japan? The same "prominent people" we've been hearing about for years now, who represent an irrelevant percentage of society?
How many times do truthers have to shove this site into your face??
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
I think it is hilarious that Patty has only a simple email to claim the guy is crazy. Of course he does NO investigation into why the woman sent an email like that or if it is truly legit. Kind of funny though that he has been elected already despite this sites lame character attack.
How many times do truthers have to shove this site into your face??
Anon,
They are deniers and we are crushing them. They just have insults and name calling. You know, I love to engage in a serious debate with these guys but only a minority of them are up to the challenge.
"This isn't about party, it isn't about Bush Bashing. It's about our country, our constitution, and our future. ... Your countrymen have been murdered and the more you delve into it the more it looks as though they were murdered by our government, who used it as an excuse to murder other people thousands of miles away.
If you ridicule others who have sincere doubts and who know factual information that directly contradicts the official report and who want explanations from those who hold the keys to our government, and have motive, means, and opportunity to pull off a 9/11, but you are too lazy or fearful, or ... to check into the facts yourself, what does that make you?
Are you afraid that you will learn the truth and you can't handle it? ...
---Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford, U.S. Marine Corps (ret) – Retired U.S. Marine Corps fighter pilot with over 300 combat missions flown. Decorations include the Distinguished Flying Cross and 32 awards of the Air Medal. Aircraft flown: Douglas A-4 Skyhawk, Lockheed C-130H Hercules. 10,000+ total hours flown. 20-year Marine Corps career.
Anonymous whines, "...and opportunity to pull off a 9/11, but you are too lazy or fearful, or ... to check into the facts yourself, what does that make you?"
What facts?
The troofers certainly don't have any facts.
Then again, I must remember that when a troofer uses the word "facts", he really means speculation, unsubstantiated allegations, lies and opinion.
Anonymous whines, "...PSYCHO DEBUNKER CULTIST AND RACIST TROY SEXTON GOES OVER THE EDGE.FILMS SELF ABUSING CHILDREN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JwE_uHVR6c"
Trolling again, jizzmop?
Heres are two FACTS Fretboard Fool
FACT 1: NIST AUGUST 2008 WTC7 could not have fell at free fall because that would violate physical laws (meaning THE LAWS OF PHYSICS numbskull)...and it did not fall at free fall, it fell 40% faster than fee fall...
FACT 2: NIST November 2008 WTC7 fell at Free for 2.25 seconds.
That is called Doublethink:
To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself―that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word "doublethink" involved the use of doublethink.
So Billbo putzhead, chief DEEeeeeNIER, do you believe in both of those statements?
"40% faster than fee fall...
Fee, fi , fo, fum...
I smell the blood of a ...mentally unbalanced twoofer...
Fee, fi , fo, fum...
Here shit for brains, straight from the cover-up artists mouth:
“[A] free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.... What the... collapse analysis shows, is that same time [sic] that it took for the structural model to come down from the roof line all the way—for those 17 floors to disappear—is 5.4 seconds. It's about 1.5 seconds, or roughly 40 percent, more time for that free fall to happen [sic]. And that is not at all unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous.”
--- NIST's lead investigator Shyam Sunder, explaining why WTC 7 could not have come down in free fall, NIST Technical Briefing, August 26, 2008
And then they wrote:
“A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face found three stages: (1) a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors, (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s[econds], and (3) a decreasing acceleration as the north face encountered resistance from the structure below.”
--- NIST's Final Report on WTC7, NCSTAR 1-9, page 607. NIST contradicting it's claim made in its Q&A document of August 2008, that “WTC7 did not enter free fall,” and its August 26, 2008 Technical Briefing explaining why WTC 7 could not have come down in free fall.
Deninition of Doublethink:
"to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic"
Debunkers = Doublethinkers
Explain away this contradiction pinheads.
So Adam Syed reads this blog! The awesomeness starts at 3:30:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwDHSyRo9Ss
Nice to see that I got under the skin of that lil' anti-Semite!
"Amazing how every prominent person (and there sure are more than quite a few of them)who even ask questions about the 9/11 mythology is branded a kook by you kooks in here."
That'd be becase he's insane, fucktard.
Not real hard to understand.
Unless you're insane yourself.
Oh.
Nevermind.
"They are deniers and we are crushing them."
HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!
Oh, fuck, the insane are great entertainment.
Yo do realize do you not, that twoooooofers™ constitute about 0.000000001% of the population, do you not?
"Go to PatriotsQuestion....there are an incredible numbe of prominent people questioning TOS."
There is not "official story", fucktard.
And no, they aren't "prominent".
They have even achieved obscurity.
"If you ridicule others who have sincere doubts and who know factual information that directly contradicts the official report and who want explanations from those who hold the keys to our government, and have motive, means, and opportunity to pull off a 9/11, but you are too lazy or fearful, or ... to check into the facts yourself, what does that make you?"
It makes you insane.
Get help.
Seriously.
"Are you afraid that you will learn the truth and you can't handle it? ..."
We know the truth.
You live in cloud kookoo land.
"it did not fall at free fall, it fell 40% faster than fee fall..."
Howso, tiny little rockets strapped on top of the debis?
"WTC7 fell at Free for 2.25 seconds."
Ummmm....what?
"Even to understand the word "doublethink" involved the use of doublethink."
And you have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
"Explain away this contradiction pinheads."
You're insane and have, at best, a very tenuous connection with reality.
Anonymous prevaricates, "...Heres are two FACTS Fretboard Fool."
Those aren't facts, jizzmop.
Here are the facts:
"...For discussion purposes, three stages were defined, as denoted in figure 3-15:
"[1] In stage 1, the descent was slow and less than that of gravity. This stage corresponds to the initial buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the North face. By 1.75 sec. the North face had descended approximately 2.2 meters (7 feet).
"[2] In stage 2, the North face descended at gravitational acceleration as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the North face. The free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 meters (105 feet), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 and t= 4.0 seconds.
"[3] In stage 3, the acceleration decreased somewhat as the upper portion of the North face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below. Between 4.0s and 5.4s, the North face corner fell an additional 39.6 meters (130 feet).
"As noted above, the collapse time was approximately 40 percent longer than that of free fall for the first 18 stories of descent. The detailed analysis shows that this increase in time is due primarily to stage 1. The 3 stages of collapse progression described above are consistent with the results of the global collapse analysis discussed in Chapter 12 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9."
Moreover, I bitch slapped you on the subject of WTC 7's collapse mechanism a month ago. Remember, Mr. quote miner?
So don't pat yourself on the back, jizzmop, because I've forgotten more about physics than you'll ever know. And I have the education to prove it, jizzmop.
Any more 100% fact-free nonsense for us, jizzmop?
There's no "doublethink" on NIST's part.
In one case Sunder was talking about the overall collapse, which took longer than the computed free fall time. Obviously there was resistance; it just wasn't continuous throughout the duration of the collapse. And there's no reason it needs to be.
The other case concerns a 2.25 second period of free fall that was preceded by a 1.75 second period of resistance in which the roofline descended only 7 feet. As explained in the report, a section of lower stories resisted collapse as its columns buckled under load, then the section eventually gave way as a unit, causing free fall for a distance corresponding to the height of the block of floors. No violation of the laws of physics, and no contradiction with what Sunder said previously.
And by the way, Anonymous, if you want true doublethink, listen to one of your cult leaders:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MusSulcJwSk
"[2] In stage 2, the North face descended at gravitational acceleration as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the North face. The free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 meters (105 feet), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 and t= 4.0 seconds.
“[A] free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.... there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous.”
--- NIST's lead investigator Shyam Sunder, explaining why WTC 7 could not have come down in free fall, NIST Technical Briefing, August 26, 2008
Except it was instantaneous. One minute the building was motionless and then 6-1/2 seconds later it was on the ground.
Sunder is trying to put lipstick on a pig.....and you guys are the pig.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous lies again, "...Except it was instantaneous. One minute the building was motionless and then 6-1/2 seconds later it was on the ground."
Liar.
Here we go again. Debunk them, and they return two weeks later with the same stinking lies.
The collapse began when the east penthouse fell into the building a full 9 seconds before the collapse of the North parapet wall.
Got it, jizzmop?
Here's the video evidence that proves you're lying again:
Source: YouTube: WTC 7 Collapse Chandler Debunked Pt 1.
Source: YouTube: WTC7 Collapse Chandler Debunked pt 2.
Thus, the collapse took 14.5 (minimum) to 18.5 seconds (conservative maximum) to collapse, not 6.5 seconds, jizzmop.
"...J-I-Z-Z-M-O-P-P! JIZZMOP!" -- Alvin and the Chipunks.
Now get to work and cherry pick the NIST Report again, Mr. Quote Miner.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
How many times do truthers have to shove this site into your face??
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
Jesus H. Christ. You people aren't even trying anymore.
40% faster than fee fall...
It's about 1.5 seconds, or roughly 40 percent, more time for that free fall to happen [sic].
Um, Twoof-boy... If something takes 40% more time that means it's 40% slower.
*** An Open Challenge To 9/11 Truthers ***
Please identify a single material misstatement of fact in either the 9/11 Commission Report or NIST's final report on WTC7.
Rules:
By "material misstatement" I don't mean typos, or spelling names wrong, or getting dates wrong, or some trivial inconsistency between earlier accounts and later accounts. "Material misstatement" means that some key fact is being falsified or misrepresented in the final report.
Please provide a link or page number or some way to identify the statement.
In addition, please provide 1) a correct representation of the misstatement, and most importantly, 2) your source for the correct representation so it can be verified.
That's all there is to it. This should be easy. Get to work.
'Go to PatriotsQuestion....there are an incredible numbe of prominent people questioning TOS.'
When did 'patriot' become a euphemism for 'nutter'?
" One minute the building was motionless and then 6-1/2 seconds later it was on the ground."
Try again, fucktard.
This time try to get in touch with reality.
"They are deniers and we are crushing them. They just have insults and name calling. You know, I love to engage in a serious debate with these guys but only a minority of them are up to the challenge."
We shall crush them! Victory shall be ours!
There's a built-in mechanism to this bomb chucking philosophy the nuts are trying to disseminate. The more intricate, 'technical', 'scientific' the argument, the crazier it sounds, the more its purveyor reveals himself as an obsessive.
The only thing more ridiculous than the attitude of - "hey, I'm all about the science / let's get technical / let's debate the hard issues" - is the buzz the anonyomous crackpot in question receives when he reflects on his great moral and intellectual superiority.
Ha! I really kicked their ass over that molten metal thing. Free fall speed ? Bring it on. I've spent the last five years compulsively 'researching' it because I have no life.
Debate?! Most of us come on here for laughs, for badinage. All this copy and paste pettifogging about gravitational accleration and expositions of po-faced Orwellian philosophy lifted from wikipedia reads like some nut asserting the superiority of the white man over the black man, based on a mid-19th century phrenological document.
I think your right avicenne.
The only schmuck on here with a life is Troy and thats not much to be bragging about. Maybe we all should turn this shit off and go jump off a building.
All this copy and paste pettifogging about gravitational accleration and expositions of po-faced Orwellian philosophy lifted from wikipedia reads like some nut asserting the superiority of the white man over the black man, based on a mid-19th century phrenological document.
Avicenne, I hope you will become a regular here. You have a most impressive vocabulary.
"Avicenne, I hope you will become a regular here. You have a most impressive vocabulary."
Yeah, talk about getting a life. How to convince people you are down-to-earth as opposed to.... "t3h ev1l trooofers" who simply visit to get a kick out of technical discussions and and parade around their moral superiority?
Why, by bloviating with a truckload of expensive words of course... and asserting that you're intellectually and morally superior, so far above the "trooofers" that you are merely here to ridicule them.
IT'S TEH GEN1US!!11!1!
Of course, if you lose a technical discussion from a "troofer" it's not because you're a total halfwit, a pseudoskeptic douche bag, an incompetent hack and a charlatan, it's obviously because the "troooofer" is an "obsessive nerd".
Welcome avicenne, to this exclusive club of child abusers, arab haters, racists, torture and war crime apologists, closet (and overt) neo-Nazis, jingoist extremists, foolhardy, mentally crippled revisionists and pathological 9/11 liars. I'm sure you'll feel right at home. Introductory note: right wing extremist conspiracy theories are allowed here, after all, they are politically expedient.
The only problem, Triterope, is that any kind of exposure to the mindset of the bomb hurlers has its risks.
That being said, long may this blog continue ,as it's a haven for those of us who have the temerity to believe that al Qaeda were responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
That being said, long may this blog continue ,as it's a haven for those of us who have the temerity to believe that al Qaeda were responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
Including their trainer, Ali Mohamed, who was CIA, FBI and special forces. Have you seen him lately? Miraculous quadruple agent, that. Seems to have disappeared into thin air. At some point, he must have transcended into a higher, invisible, spiritual state of being, like Obi Wan Kenobi.
Of course, with such brotherly cooperation, one must occasionally ask: where does the United States government stop and Al Qaeda begin?
Of course, avicenny, the new fish & eloquent poetic prevaricator for 9/11 lies, does not concern himself with such quaint historic facts. He's too busy bayoneting preposterous straw man arguments in his quest for "debunker" kudos.
The only problem, Triterope, is that any kind of exposure to the mindset of the bomb hurlers has its risks.
I know what you mean. These idiots can take a toll on you.
"and asserting that you're intellectually and morally superior, so far above the "trooofers" that you are merely here to ridicule them."
We are.
"We are."
Nah. You're the village idiot in a tight-knit gaggle of self-styled pseudoskeptic morons.
What the hell is Team AviCinzano on about anyway? Jeepers,this guy is a real card!
I really find it hard to believe that someone who believes the 9/11 conspiracy would have the temerity to call someone a "pseudoskeptic" when they believe something with so much certainty that even in the face of being shown the lies, distortions, quote-mining, cropped pictures, all they can do is lash out.
Take for instance: "Nothing hit building 7"...You show them the gaping hole in the south wall, the raging infernos burning throughout the building, footage of firefighters on the scene explaining that they need to get away from the building because it's going to collapse, etc... They will look right at it and tell you "No it isn't! Nothing hit that building. It was controlled demolition. Some guy heard from some guy who read it on the internet (so it must be true) that "pull it" means controlled demolition! You're a tool of the conspiracy maaaaaaaaan! You're a nazi gatekeeper sheeple, maaaaan! You don't KNOW what I know!" (and it goes on...and on...and on). Someone like that would have the gall to call someone ELSE a "pseudoskeptic."
One more tip for the troofers. Do yourself a favor and watch screwloosechange (hey, it's free on youtube). THIS is the work of a true skeptic. He searched out the facts, the full quotes, the full pictures, and presents it right alongside the troofers favorite fap fuel. It wil put it all in context with facts, url's you can go to in order to see the source information, and corrections to the many distortions, lies, and misconceptions that have been banging around the lunatic echo-chamber known as the troof movement. I know it may have a deleterious effect on your whole concept of self, but you really need to check it out. You will find that the sniveling little asshats who made loose change can't possibly believe the crap they are shilling, which makes them even more despicable in my eyes. Some might call it treasonous. There is nothing wrong with questioning (especially in the case of the government), but it's not really questioning if you already "know the answers" and are sure that whatever you're told is going to be a lie. Oh.....one more thing. About troofers calling us Nazis. This is incredibly ironic. Did you realize that the American Free Press (one of the sources you see quoted a lot in troofer propaganda) is run by a neo-Nazi Holocaust denier?
Archibald, so tell us about your war years in the UK. You must have been just old enough to remember something. Tell us. Were the Nazis leftists? Maybe you can clear up this misunderstanding with "debunker" Lazarus Long.
And as for the usage of the term "pseudoskeptic"... it's fully justified.
Were the Nazis leftists?
To some extent, yes, in that they were socialists. You have to remember that their main adversaries were the communists, so it's more a matter of degree.
"...tell us about your war years in the UK."
Just wtf does that have to do with the price of eggs? I have no idea of what the war years in the UK were like (outside of what I have read and watched in documentaries) since I am American-born and not nearly old enough to have been there. Oh, when you see "..." inside of a quotation, that means that part of the sentence was removed (the producers of loose shits could learn a thing or two about that). The quote-mining in loose shits is akin to quoting "I don't agree that racism is a good thing" as "Racism is a good thing." It's a common tool of those who practice to deceive and distort.
"And as for the usage of the term 'pseudoskeptic'... [elipse part of quote] it's fully justified."
No, it's not. When people on your side use phrases like "There is nothing you can say that can convince me" that is a sign of certainty, which is, of course, a sign of someone who is not open to facts pointing to the contrary. This has become a religion to most of you, and one that is zealously and blindly defended (hardly the hallmark of a true skeptic).
"To some extent, yes, in that they were socialists. You have to remember that their main adversaries were the communists, so it's more a matter of degree."
Well, then, yes, you are fucking Nazi for saying that. Only a dumb fucking American could say this.
Firstly, what does Wikipedia say about this Archibald? Are you going to maintain some loopy liberal conspiracy there?
Secondly, quote me one German mainstream source, either a historian or a newspaper, I don't care, that calls either Nazis or Neonazis "leftists" and not "right-wing extremist".
You butt-stupid fucking elbow-licking idiot. Revisionist piece of shit. You don't have the legitimacy to lecture *anyone* on *anything* as long as you promote this fucking Nazi revisionist bullshit. Are we perfectly clear?
Skeptic.. you have to fucking kidding me sophist.
...It's like fucking clockwork. I ask any single one of you pathologically lying sociopaths: "Were the Nazis leftist", and I get the same, FUCKING RETARDED answer.
That tells me *all* I need to know.
Okay. Nice invective-laced tirade full of glaring grammatical errors, signifying nothing except a need to insult people when you have no argument that can be defended. Thanks for making all of my points for me. Why are you so angry? What did I do to you? You are an emotional child throwing a temper tantrum in the absence of any kind of cohesive argument that can pass even the most cursory level of examination. I have better things to do than try to argue with you. I might as well try to have an intelligent conversation with a mentally-challenged coma patient. You really are an obnoxious little shit. The matter of whether the Nazis were left-wing or right-wing is up for debate.
"There is more that binds us to Bolshevism that separates us from it...I have given orders that...Communists are to be recruited into the party at once. The petite bourgeois Social Democrat and the trade union boss will never make a Nazi, but the communist always will" - Adolf Hitler
National Socialism was just traditional socialism/communism dressed up in nationalism.
Game. Point. Match.
YOU FUCKING IDIOT
Did you read past the first line?
"Hermann Rauschning (7 August 1887 – February 8, 1982) was a German conservative and reactionary who became a Nazi member in 1932 in the Free City of Danzig, and in 1934 renounced Nazi party membership and fled to the United States where he denounced Nazism."
"Did you read past the first line?"
What the fuck is your major malfunction?
Okay, so you're obviously too stupid to understand that your quote comes from Rauschning's book (You didn't even know that, did you), which is DISCREDITED.
HE FUCKING MADE IT UP.
I SUGGEST *YOU* READ PAST THE FIRST LINE YOU FUCKING IDIOT.
AND I FUCKING HAVE TO SPOONFEED THIS INFORMATION TO YOU BECAUSE YOU FUCKING EDUCATE YOURSELF THROUGH JONAH GOLDBERG, BILL O'REILLY, GLENN BECK, TALK RADIO, AND OTHER INSANE, REVISIONIST NUTBAGS.
Let me make this perfectly clear.
*YOU* DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT NAZISM IS.
*YOUR* NEOCON, PSEUDOSKEPTIC, YOKEL REDNECK TALK RADIO LISTENING FUCKTARD FRIENDS DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT NAZISM IS.
AND THERE IS AN ENTIRE *FUCKTARD* GENERATION OF YOU OUT THERE.
(NEO-)NAZISM IS AN EXTREME RIGHT-WING IDEOLOGY.
NOW *FUCK* OFF.
And if you still think you know better, you incurable moron, then cite me a credible, German, mainstream source (nothing less than in German will do) that supports YOUR RIDICULOUS GOP NEOCON FANTASY HISTORY STORIES.
THEY DO NOT FUCKING FLY.
The American educational system is *FUCKED* *UP*.
I'm not going to argue with you anymore. You are rude, obnoxious, delusional, and do nothing but offer insults. You do nothing but constantly move the goalposts. BTW, I don't listen to talk radio. Good bye. I have better shit to do than try to have an intelligent conversation with an emotional child.
Come on guys. The government would never lie to us about something like 9/11. Three buildings collapsed, two due to planes filled with jet fuel, one due to the huge blazing inferno that engulfed the building and destroyed the structural supports so that it would collapse in on itself all at the same time. Why would the government ever lie to the American people? You are an idiot if you think that.
Come on guys. America-haters and people trying to get rich and famous selling books and DVDs would never lie to us about something like 9/11. Three buildings collapsed, two due to planes filled with jet fuel, one due to the huge blazing inferno that engulfed the building and destroyed the structural supports so that it would collapse in on itself all at the same time. Why would these bottom-feeders ever lie to the American people? You are an idiot if you think that.
There, fix'd.
Post a Comment
<< Home