The Empty Towers

It has taken less than 10 years to pry open the can of worms enshrouding the pathetic 9/11 scam. The central role of the major newsmedia corporations to pull off this sordid "terror" simulation has now been comprehensively exposed. Before joining this forum, please get familiar with the research at: http://www.septemberclues.info

Re: The Empty Towers

Unread postby Brutal Metal on Wed May 11, 2011 6:07 pm

artreddin wrote:Well, first of all, thank you to those who responded and those who will respond shortly. My interest, whether you believe it sincere or not, is in getting to the bottom of the matter. A lively debate here can only help in that regard.

Where are the weak links in "September Clues vs. THE POWERS THAT BE"?

The first is that the argument that there were no victims within the towers on that fateful day is still somewhat tenuous. If this were put forth, the case would be absolutely destroyed in court - and in the public eye - by a simple presentation verifying a dozen real victims, with the reclamations and appeal to emotion of "How dare you!!" etc.

The burning towers of 9-11 could have easily been seen from up to twenty miles away, as the WTC was located on a point of land surrounded by water. Furthermore, the top-down style of demolition would also have been easily visible, as would the tremendous plumes of fine dust rising in the air and covering everything in Manhattan.

Evidence of victims inside when the towers fell? Show me something Concrete?? Destroyed in court how?? The defense attorney is gonna say "How Dare you question the loss of 3000 lives and that's it?" Doesn't work that way!!
And there you go again about being able to see the towers from 20 miles away burning!! PLEASE round up some average Joe Blow digital camera pics from Jersey and Hoboken and we'll have a viewing party right here on the Forum!! 10 Years now let's see em B)
Brutal Metal
Member
 
Posts: 401
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:58 am

Re: The Empty Towers

Unread postby Heiwa on Wed May 11, 2011 6:15 pm

artreddin wrote: The problem, as I've said, is that the buildings were not just demolished but rather pulverized.


We only know that the buildings were demolished. The footage of the demolitions - tops crushing bottoms - is faked, so we don't know how the demolitions took place, incl. if they were pulverized, whatever that means. The footage of the rubble is also faked.
A simple way to demolish anything is from bottom up. To hide that you do that on 911, is to show something else 'live on TV', etc. To hide that the rubble shows a heap of elements due to a bottom up demolition, is to show rubble where elements appear 'pulverized". It seems all footage of 'pulverized' rubble is faked.

I offer anyone €1 000 000:- cash on the barrel to describe an empty structure/tower, top of which can destroy the bottom by gravity + a real video of the destruction. Structure can be any size and material and design. Evidently the task is impossible ... and that is why Obama murdered the wrong person the other day that Obama held responsible for the WTC destructions. Not even Osama could ever destroy any towers by flying planes into the tops. It only happens in Hollywood!
Heiwa
Banned
 
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm

Re: The Empty Towers

Unread postby nonhocapito on Wed May 11, 2011 6:23 pm

artreddin wrote:Nonhocapito further argues in regard to the use of DEW Star Wars technology:
But whether or not this technology truly exists is total speculation, isn't it? You don't have any documents to back it up and not a shred of evidence whatsoever.
This argument, of course, is specious: I've never claimed to work in an advanced weapons lab nor to have any understanding as to the possible physics involved. Until the matter is thorougly investigated by persons acting on behalf of the abused public, it is obvious that no evidence of the existence of this technology will become available. "Top Secret" doesn't begin to describe what we would imagine to be the restrictions on access.


All we have are some videos that show the towers falling down from the top on their own footprint. Think about this: because some planes are supposed to have hit the towers in the higher part, that's where the collapsing has to start from. How not to see that they needed to fake the collapsing imagery this way to be consistent with the planes fable?

Facing this strange imagery, your explanation is that there must have been some energy beam that destroyed the towers from above. How about media fakery? Isn't that more likely than energy beams?
Sure, it is difficult if not impossible to imagine how they achieved image control on the whole city. The story is bound to have such holes. But "energy beams" are even more unreal. The only reason why you can find them preferable, is hollywood.
We heard this claim a number of times before and it never goes further than that. The videos of the demolition must be real, hence there was "an energy beam". Let me rephrase that: there was a completely invisible energy beam. What form of energy that powerful is invisible? Oh, I forgot, it's top secret.
We have plenty of images for nuclear weapons, and we are still able to argue that they are all doctored. Why should we believe in an invisible energy beam? Believe to believe, why not believing that the towers collapsed "due to structural damages because the fire was just too intense?" :D

You say that my argument that there is no evidence is "specious". So let me get this straight: you suggest an idea, and I am being specious for saying that it is not supported by anything. What a laugh! What else do you expect ideas to be welcomed with?

As to my flopping about, your eloquence hides a lot of arrogance that sounds even too familiar. Take your time and explain my flopping about. I am a real person who deserves the courtesy. The same courtesy I am using you not dismissing your flimsy non-existing arguments right away.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2554
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: The Empty Towers

Unread postby simonshack on Wed May 11, 2011 6:56 pm

artreddin wrote:Thanks for taking the time for your extensive reply, Simon.


You are welcome, Art.

However, in taking time to respond to you, I was hoping our discourse would progress beyond the usual accusations of "Ad hominem attacks [and] straw man arguments" (quoting your own words). As for banning you, none of the administrators, the only ones capable of doing that, have yet threatened you with such a thing.

Nonhocapito rightly points out that there are many forums out there which will welcome debating your WTC collapse theories. The DEW ("Directed Energy Weapons") or Underground Nuke theories promoted by Judy Wood and Dimitri Khalezov have become fairly popular of late. Alas, they both fundamentally rely on the 'empirical analysis' of images which simply do not represent what happened in Manhattan on September 11, 2001. Now, is that what you would call 'scientific method'? I dearly hope not. If you do, I can only return this previous, unfortunate remark of yours to the sender: "Where is your head?"

Back in 2004, some valid researchers (untarnished by the disinfo avalanche of later years) had already formulated the most rational, logical, plain-as-day scenario for the WTC demolitions; they were simply carried out by Controlled Demolitions Inc, the same company which was contracted to remove the rubble of the WTC - and of the Oklahoma City building six years earlier (which probably just was a test run for 9/11). I would highly recommend everyone to read this whole thread still up on the now seemingly defunct 'Bilderberg forum': http://bilderberg-forum.org/bilderberg/ ... ?f=2&t=185

As for your problems with 'how to demolish such high-rise buildings in Manhattan without damaging surrounding ones', I am sure you know that as many as 9 buildings were, in fact, destroyed (WTC1, WTC2, WTC3 - the Marriott Hotel - WTC4, WTC5, WTC6, WTC7, The Deutsche Bank and the little St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox church.) If you don't believe me, just ask the owner of most of them, Mr. Larry Silverstein, who bought them only 7 weeks before 9/11: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein

Make sure you read the part about explosive expert Val Romero - who (in)famously went on record 3 days after 9/11 saying that 'it looked like a controlled demolition' - and fully recanted that statement a while later (stating that "the jet-fuel fires weakened the steel"):
ImageVAL ROMERO
Van Romero is vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (NMTech). The Socorro university has levered itself into one of the elite sites in the world for the study of explosives and terrorism, attracting nearly $10 million a year in federal money for programs that test explosives for US and foreign agencies. On the morning of the attacks, Romero and Tech's finance vice president Denny Peterson, were near the Pentagon.


So let me now have some fun - I am a failed comic novelist, but I still enjoy the odd comedy-writing now and then...

9/11 planning session with DICK, RUPERT, LARRY, RUMMY and VAL
Cast: Dick Cheney ***Rupert Murdoch***Larry Silverstein***Donald Rumsfeld***Val Romero

LARRY - "Ok, so I just bought the World Trade Center Complex, guys. How do you propose to bring it down, Dick?"
DICK - "We've got an expert here, Larry. Let me introduce you to Val - a controlled demolition expert...
RUMMY - " WHA-AT? Dick!!! You're not gonna let this demo be done by conventional means, this is awfully démodé!"
DICK - "Shut up, Don!"
VAL - "Yeah, no sweat, Larry: we just bring the 102 stories down in three 34-story sections. A couple of cutter charges around floors 68, 34 and at ground level will do the job. We'll make them crash over Larry's other buildings, those brilliant Loizeaux guys have done this shit for years. No prob."
RUMMY - "But, but... - what about the 2.3 trillion bucks we diverted into the Space Weapons program?"
DICK - "Shut up, Don!!"
LARRY - "In sections? You're going to bring down the Twin Towers in sections? How will we explain this to the TV viewers?"
RUPERT: "Hehe, dontcha worry: we've got a ready-made movie showing airplanes striking the towers - and chopper images showing the Twin Towers collapsing in a plume of dust."
DICK: "Yeah, people on the street won't see a thing - we'll use the trusty ol' military smoke obscurants, hehe!"
RUMMY: "But we can dustify the towers FOR REAL! We have the Directed Energy Space Weapons !"
DICK: "Oh shut the fuck up now, fool! Do you really wanna use that stuff in Manhattan? Imagine something goes wrong and we zap the UN building instead! Don, next you're going to suggest we use nukes, right?"
LARRY - "Wow! ...But what if the smokescreen doesn't quite cover the top and people on the street see just the first, top section collapsing?"
RUPERT: "We've got that in the movie: a bunch of...heh...'eyewitnesses' saying "the top section of the tower collapsed!"
LARRY: "Brilliant!"
VAL: "Smart!"
DICK: "Then we will have our expert VAL tell the press that 'it looked like a controlled demolition' - only to recant it all a few days later and say that the jet-fuel fire weakened the steel!"
(which is exactly what Val Romero did in reality, look it up!) http://xenonpup.startlogic.com/experts/
VAL, RUPERT & LARRY: " Hahahahahahaha!!!! Way to go!" (applauses)
RUMMY: " *shucks!* "
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6734
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: The Empty Towers

Unread postby artreddin on Wed May 11, 2011 7:34 pm

Nonhocapito,

Since you asked me to explain why I called the last paragraph of your initial rebuttal so much "flopping about", I will do so, and yes, I appreciate that you are a real person who deserves the courtesy.

Much of what you say is fine, but you attempt to turn it against me by a slight misrepresentation of my original statement. Your final paragraph states:
Last point: your paragraph about WTC photos that we supposedly could have doctored is so absurd and badly put. First off, do not just say that. Point us to the imagery that you think is photoshopped, show us why and how it is photoshopped, and we can have a discussion about something. Generally, if you read this forum you would know, we don't take at face value any imagery at all. If anything we take the opposite path, and when it comes to media events we tend to believe everything is photoshopped. This is useful though, because our arguments are not proved by this or that image, but by the relation among the different images. If "image A" contradicts "story line B" and "video C", things have been faked. This is usually a method, not: "this picture contradicts this other picture which means that one of the two is real". Pictures of empty offices allegedly taken inside the WTC don't prove anything, but they certainly don't help the cause of buildings bustling with activity either.
My original argument was that any image, including ones put up on this site by people supposedly gathering the truth, may be doctored. This would be much much harder to prove today than ten years ago, and indeed, most would think it unnecessary to test them... unless, like you and me, they lived by the motto "Question Everything". I also presented the argument as a possible rebuttal by an outsider, basically with the idea "Well, why should we believe your images are the real ones?"

When I say the final sentence gives the lie to the weakness of your rebuttal I was referring to the word "allegedly": first you accept that they are only presented as being legitimate (Really, we only have the poster's word; they could be taken in any office in any city.) but then you conclude from this that they have something to do with deciding whether the buildings were bustling with activity or not.

I didn't mean my short dismissal to be discourteous; I was just aware that I'd gone on at some length, and others by then may preferred for me to shut up (!).

As for the energies involved in breaking the molecular bonds of steel and concrete being visible or not, I don't think it's particularly vital. Microwaves - or indeed ordinary ovens - cook food but we don't see the force involved.

On the other hand, you assertion that "they needed to fake the collapsing imagery this way to be consistent with the planes fable" is quite insightful.

However, I hope you can appreciate that this same argument could be used to justify the dustification of the buildings from top down - in this case, the "planes" exploding into the building serving both as a visible representation of the "terrorists' attack" and a cover that would allow for bringing the buildings down through a pulverization from the top to the bottom... this, BTW and despite Heiwa's insistence, having nothing to do with gravity.
artreddin
Member
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 6:57 pm

Re: The Empty Towers

Unread postby simonshack on Wed May 11, 2011 8:25 pm

artreddin wrote: I also presented the argument as a possible rebuttal by an outsider, basically with the idea "Well, why should we believe your images are the real ones?"


Dear Arthur,

You have now used the word 'outsider' a number of times. What exactly is your definition of an 'outsider'? Someone who has no time to look at the evidence at hand? Someone who hasn't got a clue of what this research is about?

Then you mention an 'imaginary court of law'. Do you think any 'outsiders' would ever be invited to participate in such a serious, historically world-defining courtcase? I think not. Can our case, as you say, be "easily torn apart by any astute defence lawyer"? No - those are only words that you type without anything to back them up. As I can gather it seems that, for instance, you still believe that the WTC collapses shown on TV (still viewable on the official TV archives - and therefore totally beyond the control of anyone on this forum or elsewhere) are real and legit images of what took place in Manhattan on 9/11... To even fleetingly hint to the possibility that WE are the 'fakers' of the 9/11 TV networks' images is a quite juvenile statement and, frankly, makes me think that you are either a troll or a fool.

As far as I can tell, you yourself are an outsider. You simply have not gone through the full body of evidence at hand. Due to laziness? Due to more sinister reasons? Only time will tell. Please keep posting your thoughts - we're all ears.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6734
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: The Empty Towers

Unread postby reel.deal on Wed May 11, 2011 8:41 pm

artreddin wrote: My original argument was that any image, including ones put up on this site by people supposedly gathering the truth, may be doctored. ... "Well, why should we believe your images are the real ones?"
... : first you accept that they are only presented as being legitimate (Really, we only have the poster's word; they could be taken in any office in any city.)



THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ARTIST PROJECTS... FAKE ? :huh:

gelitin - "The B-Thing" - http://www.gelitin.net/mambo/index.php?set_albumName=album03&option=com_gallery_proj144&Itemid=91&include=view_album.php

Lower Manhattan Cultural Council - http://www.lmcc.net/residencies/workspace/past_sessions/world_views

World Views artists-in-residence - http://www.sonicmemorial.org/sonic/public/artists/artist.html

Martina Geccelli - http://www.martinageccelli.co.uk/gallery_244084.html

E-Team - http://www.meineigenheim.org/past/windows/windows.html
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 1294
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:42 am

Re: The Empty Towers

Unread postby nonhocapito on Wed May 11, 2011 8:58 pm

artreddin wrote:My original argument was that any image, including ones put up on this site by people supposedly gathering the truth, may be doctored. This would be much much harder to prove today than ten years ago, and indeed, most would think it unnecessary to test them... unless, like you and me, they lived by the motto "Question Everything". I also presented the argument as a possible rebuttal by an outsider, basically with the idea "Well, why should we believe your images are the real ones?"

When I say the final sentence gives the lie to the weakness of your rebuttal I was referring to the word "allegedly": first you accept that they are only presented as being legitimate (Really, we only have the poster's word; they could be taken in any office in any city.) but then you conclude from this that they have something to do with deciding whether the buildings were bustling with activity or not.


Yes they have something to do, like all the imagery we have. As I said, it is in the relation between the images that lie the useful things. I wouldn't put the images of the empty offices on the front page, but I certainly don't refuse them right away either. They are part of this strange, unfathomable pool of absurd pictures that are left around us to tell the story of the rise and fall of the WTC. As I said, on this forum you rarely see images being treated as if they were certainly real. But they are often telling us something anyway.

And BTW, don't you do something worse with those energy beams? You seem to have decided that a certain part of the images is real: the smoking towers and later on, the falling towers. They must be real, you say, because people could see them from miles (what about the planes, then?). Then you decide that the most probable explanation are the energy beams. Once you get married with said explanation you go about attacking whoever thinks differently. But -- how can you be so sure?

Me, I am open to every possibility. You say that we have a microwave dustifying buildings at work here. I don't dismiss it, I don't know if it is possible or not. Maybe it is. But I find other explanations much more likely, more interesting, more consistent with the reality I know about. The giant microwave, maybe the same "HAARP" we always hear about with earthquakes, is a fascinating shortcut that gets us nowhere but in a corner, where you are left looking for "followers" who are to believe the theory. Who wants that? If I wanted religion I'd be in church.

The beauty of the research on media fakery is that it frees us from this burden, of having to believe a "theory of everything", a "religion of truth" like with the various branches of the "truth" movement. An exposee of media fakery perfectly works with a theory full of unknowns and believe me, it helps a lot more.

artreddin wrote:in this case, the "planes" exploding into the building serving both as a visible representation of the "terrorists' attack" and a cover that would allow for bringing the buildings down through a pulverization from the top to the bottom... this, BTW and despite Heiwa's insistence, having nothing to do with gravity.


Thus we have a plan to show to the world this super secret microwave weapon at work, for the purpose of demolishing a couple of buildings in the middle of a big city, but we put people off-track by pretending it was all caused by planes. Why using the microwave in the first place then? Why do you think in this plan, like Simon perfectly mocked above, nobody realized it was more practical to use some form of classic demolition, anything that could be covered with a bit of smoke and a bit of photoshop?
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2554
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: The Empty Towers

Unread postby warriorhun on Wed May 11, 2011 9:53 pm

Dear artreddin,

1. If WTC was pulverized, just what exactly was sold to and shipped over to China after 9/11? Tons of dust? Could not the Chineese find dust in China for free?

2. In an imaginary court, in a hypothetical septemberclues vs. perps case, I think the perps would fall over themselves to provide us evidence that the towers were empty and no-one died on 9/11. (Mind you, "Al-Qaeda" are IDF Mistaravim, SITE fakery and MSM propaganda, so no Muslim jihadists were involved in 9/11: we are talking about the real perps now). Because no matter where you look at it, killing 3000 people in a false-flag attack is a hanging matter, while for simply showing a sci-fi horror on TV you can not send people to the gallows...

3. But the imaginary court is in our heads, the battlefield is our brain, and the spoils of war are our lives.
warriorhun
Member
 
Posts: 514
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:26 pm

Re: The Empty Towers

Unread postby simonshack on Wed May 11, 2011 10:03 pm

warriorhun wrote:
3. But the imaginary court is in our heads, the battlefield is our brain, and the spoils of war are our lives.


That kind of sums up all of our valiant efforts - magic statement, Warriorhun! :P
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6734
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: The Empty Towers

Unread postby reel.deal on Wed May 11, 2011 10:30 pm

AMERICA ! - The REST OF THE WORLD is REALLY WORRIED ABOUT YOU !!!
With that NEW OLD-OSAMA-DEAD VIDEO we thought you had THROWN IN THE TOWELL !!!
We feel JUST AWFUL that you're nearly RUNNING OUT OF BULLSHIT.

PLEASE FEEL FREE TO COME & BOMB THE SHIT OUT OF US... ANYTIME !!!
ANYTHING !!! ...TO HELP POOR OL' USA REDRESS THE BULLSHIT-DEFICIT !!!

CHINA SAYS 'GREAT JOB USA!' DEFEATING COMMUNISM & ISLAM !!!
NOW CAPITALISMS "WON", IT CAN ONLY EAT ITSELF ALIVE !!!

OH YEAH, CHINA WANTS THAT $17 TRILLIONS 'VICTORIOUS' CAPITALIST USA-DEBT BACK...
now theyre holding ideologue activist artist AI WEIWEI as ransom !!! :o
PARTY'S OVER... FOOLS !!!

love, rest-of-the-world,
& reeld

=)



:P
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 1294
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:42 am

Re: The Empty Towers

Unread postby Tufa on Wed May 11, 2011 11:47 pm

nonhocapito wrote:Me, I am open to every possibility. You say that we have a microwave dustifying buildings at work here. I don't dismiss it, I don't know if it is possible or not.

Well, I dismiss it. It is not possible.
Tufa
Member
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:13 pm

Re: The Empty Towers

Unread postby simonshack on Thu May 12, 2011 12:00 am

Tufa wrote: Well, I dismiss it. It is not possible.


Well, I dismiss it too. Sorry if I'm being too Swedish ... <_<


By the way; I credit TUFA for making me rethink my missile theory. Thanks Tufa! Only small fireworks probably opened those gashes in the WTC façades. Nothing else was needed.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6734
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: The Empty Towers

Unread postby simonshack on Thu May 12, 2011 12:20 am

Hee is how CONTROLLED DEMOLITION INC pulls down buildings:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaBQ3AkRetI

THIS VIDEO IS BY THE LOIZEAUX group, aka the founders of "CONTROLLED DEMOLITION INC."
Those expert demolition folks should be interrogated as to their role on 9/11.

Just my two cents
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6734
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: The Empty Towers

Unread postby fbenario on Thu May 12, 2011 12:53 am

simonshack wrote:Back in 2004, some valid researchers (untarnished by the disinfo avalanche of later years) had already formulated the most rational, logical, plain-as-day scenario for the WTC demolitions; they were simply carried out by Controlled Demolitions Inc, the same company which was contracted to remove the rubble of the WTC - and of the Oklahoma City building six years earlier (which probably just was a test run for 9/11). I would highly recommend everyone to read this whole thread still up on the now seemingly defunct 'Bilderberg forum': http://bilderberg-forum.org/bilderberg/ ... ?f=2&t=185

A couple of posts from perp-site 911blogger present what sounds like a possible alternative to Controlled Demolition, Inc. This is a summary of them from 2009, when I saw them and posted on my blog (before I first saw september clues). I have no idea whether the links still work, so I'm presenting this solely as archival material.
The nano-thermite found at the WTC in the rubble was only produced at one factory in the world:

which just happened to be a naval factory/laboratory,

which just happened to have been built in the 90s by Turner Construction,

which is also one of the leading demolition firms in the world (Seattle Kingdome, et.al.),

and which was doing 'fireproofing' of the WTC (wrapping material around the steel beams - which just so happens to be where thermite, or any other explosive material, is applied prior to a controlled demolition) during the 6 months prior to 9/11, INCLUDING the day before and the morning of the 11th."

So, we have knowledge, past experience with nanothermite, motive (CEO is a friend/neighbor of Bush), and placement on-site. This will hang them in court.

Here are two background articles:

1. http://www.911blogger.com/node/19889

2. "The regions of WTC 1 and WTC 2 that had fireproofing materials reportedly reapplied to their structural steel, are also the same regions within which each building structurally failed and that were struck by American Airlines flight 11 and United Airlines flight 175 on September 11, 2001.
...
“…However, [Turner's parent] company’s reputation is tarnished by World War II, when it deployed forced labor on construction projects. It built the Führerbunker in Berlin, scene of Adolf Hitler’s suicide, as well as Hitler’s Berghof retreat and Wolf’s Lair headquarters.

Everyone here has seen HBO’s Band of Brothers, right?. Remember in the last episode when Easy Co. captured Hitler’s Wolf’s Lair. It appears that silver and gold plated retreat for Hitler, and Hitler personal Berlin bunker were built by HOCHTIEF AG, the company that acquired Turner Construction. That means that Hitler was so sure of the loyalty of Hochtief AG, he trusted his life in the hands of Hochtief AG AFTER the assassination attempt.

Now there’s something I didn’t expect to see when I woke up this morning. A direct connection between some of Hitler’s most trusted civil engineers, and the World Trade Center 2 years prior to it’s destruction."

http://www.911blogger.com/node/19516
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2227
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

PreviousNext

Return to SEPTEMBER CLUES: the 9/11 psyop exposed: the media aired a "Made-for-TV Hollywood movie"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest