What brought down WTC7

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: jonks
Are ALL these people who saw the plane that hit the pentagon Government Agents?

Did your teachers ever play this game ? Ya start a story and whisper it to first pupil. (not student) Than he turns and whispers the story to another than so on ans so forth . At the end the story isn't the same . 2001 was along me ago . Our government has many resources that belong to us . But are used against us . Trueth is so very hard to grasp when none know its meaning . If something is built on a lie even tho some trueth remain the whole is a lie . Period. Bible is best example. Many trueths remain . Those are way to spot its the lies that really stick out . Like PAUL the ROMAN pig. Who was gay and a liar who used the word I way to much to be of GODS Spirit. Moses only used it once and was not allowed into the promised land . When he struck the rock . He said I command water come forth . IIIIIIIIIIII . Any who use are not of the spirit. Also war . Christians cann't kill for any reason . None . Why would they if their beliefs are true? Na you believe the lies to protect the I word . All things come from GOD I has little to do with anything other than self . Which is none christian / and jewish . Jews can fight wars tho in their beliefs. Because they reject the trueth as do almost all others.

I see. From those incoherent ramblings, the takeaway point is that you don't like Jews and they were very likely responsible for 9/11. Well, I can't say I'm surprised that you're an antisemitic piece of shit.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Number1
But seriously, why do you say there were no other large plane crashs. Plenty of pictures at the Pentagon show airplane debris.
Many victims in fligh 93 were identified using DNA. How is that possible if there was no plane? How about the recovered flight recorder at the flight 93 crash site?

Beside, all your arguments have been debunked in this thread repeatedly.

I think you have conclusively demonstrated a lack of common sense and intellectual competence regarding this subject.

The problem is that the pictures from the pentagon don't show enough debris that would resemble an actual plane crashing there. There were no large sections of engines, or tail piece, or wing sections. Of course you already knew that, right? The official story claims it was just vaporized in the heat.

Now, the pseudoskeptics have been hammering away how jet fuel burns at only about 1000C, not hot enough to melt steel. The engines of the airplane were made made from titanium alloys, which would require at least 1600C to melt... and even greater temps to vaporize. So how is it that those components just happened to melt?

The flip side is IF by some magic circumstance most of the plane just vaporized, then how were the authorities able to identify the victims by DNA, which supposedly did not vaporize?

Really? How many plane crashes into buildings have you seen?

The plane HIT the Pentagon at nearly 800 feet per second. That's approximately 550 miles per hour. Not only did it hit the Pentagon, but the core damage extended nearly 250 feet into the building. The plane was full of jet fuel, which immediately started burning and, as we know, airplanes are made of a rather fragile metal called aluminum.

There is photo evidence of debris at the crash site. There is photo evidence of debris charred IN the building and there is photo evidence of debris scattered across the lawn of the Pentagon. As expected, the largest pieces of debris are the engines, of which we have photographs.

A plane recently crashed into a mountain, and there were much larger debris pieces, as seen here

Text

Where are the photo's showing any large pieces of debris at the Pentagon. Moreover, how many other plane crashes have you seen where the debris just scatters into tiny pieces?

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: munky
The problem is that the pictures from the pentagon don't show enough debris that would resemble an actual plane crashing there.

No, the problem is, once again, that you have zero ability to weigh evidence.

On one side we have your argument that the pictures of the wreckage at the pentagon don't show enough debris.

On the other hand we have dozens of reported eyewitness accounts of the plane as it headed to and ultimately struck the pentagon.
http://www.geocities.com/someg...ntknow33/witnesses.htm

In any normal person's view, what happened isn't really up for debate. Of course we've established truthers are by no means normal so this isn't surprising.

I also recall there being plenty of eye witnesses to explosions at WTC. What makes your eye witnesses more credible than the others? I can just as easily sweep aside your list of eye witnesses as irrelevant.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: munky
The problem is that the pictures from the pentagon don't show enough debris that would resemble an actual plane crashing there.

No, the problem is, once again, that you have zero ability to weigh evidence.

On one side we have your argument that the pictures of the wreckage at the pentagon don't show enough debris.

On the other hand we have dozens of reported eyewitness accounts of the plane as it headed to and ultimately struck the pentagon.
http://www.geocities.com/someg...ntknow33/witnesses.htm

In any normal person's view, what happened isn't really up for debate. Of course we've established truthers are by no means normal so this isn't surprising.

I also recall there being plenty of eye witnesses to explosions at WTC. What makes your eye witnesses more credible than the others? I can just as easily sweep aside your list of eye witnesses as irrelevant.

bullshit. There were ZERO eye witnesses of explosions at the WTC. Some people claimed to hear loud bangs which could have been oil tanks exploding. Not one person saw explosives or shaped charges or detonation wire.

You're going to "sweep aside" the accounts of dozens of people who saw the fucking plane hit the building?

Again, you can't weigh evidence. I wonder where Kyle is on this point? What does Mr. Facts say?

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Number1
But seriously, why do you say there were no other large plane crashs. Plenty of pictures at the Pentagon show airplane debris.
Many victims in fligh 93 were identified using DNA. How is that possible if there was no plane? How about the recovered flight recorder at the flight 93 crash site?

Beside, all your arguments have been debunked in this thread repeatedly.

I think you have conclusively demonstrated a lack of common sense and intellectual competence regarding this subject.

The problem is that the pictures from the pentagon don't show enough debris that would resemble an actual plane crashing there. There were no large sections of engines, or tail piece, or wing sections. Of course you already knew that, right? The official story claims it was just vaporized in the heat.

Now, the pseudoskeptics have been hammering away how jet fuel burns at only about 1000C, not hot enough to melt steel. The engines of the airplane were made made from titanium alloys, which would require at least 1600C to melt... and even greater temps to vaporize. So how is it that those components just happened to melt?

The flip side is IF by some magic circumstance most of the plane just vaporized, then how were the authorities able to identify the victims by DNA, which supposedly did not vaporize?

Really? How many plane crashes into buildings have you seen?

The plane HIT the Pentagon at nearly 800 feet per second. That's approximately 550 miles per hour. Not only did it hit the Pentagon, but the core damage extended nearly 250 feet into the building. The plane was full of jet fuel, which immediately started burning and, as we know, airplanes are made of a rather fragile metal called aluminum.

There is photo evidence of debris at the crash site. There is photo evidence of debris charred IN the building and there is photo evidence of debris scattered across the lawn of the Pentagon. As expected, the largest pieces of debris are the engines, of which we have photographs.

A plane recently crashed into a mountain, and there were much larger debris pieces, as seen here

Text

Where are the photo's showing any large pieces of debris at the Pentagon. Moreover, how many other plane crashes have you seen where the debris just scatters into tiny pieces?

A) That plane isn't a jet plane, nor is it a plane anywhere near the scale of a 757. It doesn't have the speed, weight, or fuel capacity to destroy itself as thoroughly.

B) The pilot was probably trying NOT to kill everything in sight. That means this plane couldn't have been traveling at 550 mph and it wasn't trying to hit the mountain.

C) That plane collided with a solid object which it did not penetrate. The plane at the Pentagon burned for a long time before anybody could put all the fires out. Much of the evidence, while not melted was at least grossly distorted or burned by the fire. That doesn't happen when the fire isn't sheltered by a building.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: munky
The problem is that the pictures from the pentagon don't show enough debris that would resemble an actual plane crashing there.

No, the problem is, once again, that you have zero ability to weigh evidence.

On one side we have your argument that the pictures of the wreckage at the pentagon don't show enough debris.

On the other hand we have dozens of reported eyewitness accounts of the plane as it headed to and ultimately struck the pentagon.
http://www.geocities.com/someg...ntknow33/witnesses.htm

In any normal person's view, what happened isn't really up for debate. Of course we've established truthers are by no means normal so this isn't surprising.

These eye witness accounts must be recent because few seen the hit. or the plane not only that most discribe seeing differant planes . WHY? LIES!

 

[Nemesis 1]

Watch this and tell me the man is liar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFz7gLz7CVk

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: munky

A plane recently crashed into a mountain, and there were much larger debris pieces, as seen here

Text

how fast was it going? what was the angle of impact?

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Watch this and tell me the man is liar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lci_eKWgcos

obviously it comes down to lying. not that he didn't know what he was looking at, was too far away to see anything, or any other reasonable explanation. no, he's either blown the lid off the whole thing or he's lying.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: munky
The problem is that the pictures from the pentagon don't show enough debris that would resemble an actual plane crashing there.

No, the problem is, once again, that you have zero ability to weigh evidence.

On one side we have your argument that the pictures of the wreckage at the pentagon don't show enough debris.

On the other hand we have dozens of reported eyewitness accounts of the plane as it headed to and ultimately struck the pentagon.
http://www.geocities.com/someg...ntknow33/witnesses.htm

In any normal person's view, what happened isn't really up for debate. Of course we've established truthers are by no means normal so this isn't surprising.

I also recall there being plenty of eye witnesses to explosions at WTC. What makes your eye witnesses more credible than the others? I can just as easily sweep aside your list of eye witnesses as irrelevant.

Well, what you're tossing out is people simply saying "I saw a plane flying really low and slamming into a building" versus "I saw a metallic substance which I think was molten steel." I'm NOT discounting that those firefighters saw something molten, I'm just saying that it likely was not steel and that they have no qualifications to assess what the substance is. In this instance, I believe anyone to be capable of identifying an airplane and testifying to it slamming into the building.

Get it? The firefighters saw SOMETHING molten. It probably wasn't steel. These people saw AN AIRPLANE. It probably was an airplane because anybody can identify it.

Second, we have the NIST report which backs up the claims of the eye-witnesses. Unlike the firefighters, where there is no evidence the fire ever got warm enough to melt steel, there are nearly 45 pages of supporting evidence to corroborate the eye-witness account of a plane hitting the building.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: jonks
Are ALL these people who saw the plane that hit the pentagon Government Agents?

Did your teachers ever play this game ? Ya start a story and whisper it to first pupil. (not student) Than he turns and whispers the story to another than so on ans so forth . At the end the story isn't the same . 2001 was along me ago . Our government has many resources that belong to us . But are used against us . Trueth is so very hard to grasp when none know its meaning . If something is built on a lie even tho some trueth remain the whole is a lie . Period. Bible is best example. Many trueths remain . Those are way to spot its the lies that really stick out . Like PAUL the ROMAN pig. Who was gay and a liar who used the word I way to much to be of GODS Spirit. Moses only used it once and was not allowed into the promised land . When he struck the rock . He said I command water come forth . IIIIIIIIIIII . Any who use are not of the spirit. Also war . Christians cann't kill for any reason . None . Why would they if their beliefs are true? Na you believe the lies to protect the I word . All things come from GOD I has little to do with anything other than self . Which is none christian / and jewish . Jews can fight wars tho in their beliefs. Because they reject the trueth as do almost all others.

Well, I'm convinced. 9/11 was planned, executed and covered up by Paul and his legion of Roman pigs. Apparently he was jealous because the buildings looked like giant "I"s and he didn't want anyone to outlie or outgay him in his debasement of God's spirit. It's all right here in "The Bible according to Saint Lunatique: Crackpot Conspiracy Edition."

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: munky
The problem is that the pictures from the pentagon don't show enough debris that would resemble an actual plane crashing there.

No, the problem is, once again, that you have zero ability to weigh evidence.

On one side we have your argument that the pictures of the wreckage at the pentagon don't show enough debris.

On the other hand we have dozens of reported eyewitness accounts of the plane as it headed to and ultimately struck the pentagon.
http://www.geocities.com/someg...ntknow33/witnesses.htm

In any normal person's view, what happened isn't really up for debate. Of course we've established truthers are by no means normal so this isn't surprising.

I also recall there being plenty of eye witnesses to explosions at WTC. What makes your eye witnesses more credible than the others? I can just as easily sweep aside your list of eye witnesses as irrelevant.

bullshit. There were ZERO eye witnesses of explosions at the WTC. Some people claimed to hear loud bangs which could have been oil tanks exploding. Not one person saw explosives or shaped charges or detonation wire.

You're going to "sweep aside" the accounts of dozens of people who saw the fucking plane hit the building?

Again, you can't weigh evidence.

Bull fucking shit. There were people in the basement of WTC who were injured by explosions before the planes even hit the towers. Just the fact that they didn't see some dynamite sticks with red wires duct-taped to the walls (as your simpleton assumption would suggest), does not in any way prove that there were no explosives in the building or that there were no eye witnesses. Let me remind you that in 1993 nobody saw your "explosives" either until a huge crater blew up under one of the towers.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Watch this and tell me the man is liar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lci_eKWgcos

Read anything I've written and respond to it without invoking "Jebus" or the evil, hooked-nose jews.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: munky
The problem is that the pictures from the pentagon don't show enough debris that would resemble an actual plane crashing there.

No, the problem is, once again, that you have zero ability to weigh evidence.

On one side we have your argument that the pictures of the wreckage at the pentagon don't show enough debris.

On the other hand we have dozens of reported eyewitness accounts of the plane as it headed to and ultimately struck the pentagon.
http://www.geocities.com/someg...ntknow33/witnesses.htm

In any normal person's view, what happened isn't really up for debate. Of course we've established truthers are by no means normal so this isn't surprising.

These eye witness accounts must be recent because few seen the hit. or the plane not only that most discribe seeing differant planes . WHY? LIES!

The publication dates are linked to most of the testimonials on the page. Almost all are 9/11 or 9/12 of 2001. So yes, they are recent given that our calendar goes back 2000 years, but they are not recent in relation to 9/11/01 and today, having been made on or near the day of 9/11.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
You haven't made a case for anything . Next few years I will not enjoy but ya all deserve what your going to recieve. The day I die . You die.

:laugh:

Seriously, what the fuck?

Didn't you know? Nemesis1, along with all his other crazy ramblings, believes in the Mayan prophecy. In fact his forum name comes from a belief in some kind of dark star named Nemesis that is suposed to wipe out life the Earth in 2012. He actually believes in that crap.

You can't make that kind of crazy. It's born that way.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: munky
The problem is that the pictures from the pentagon don't show enough debris that would resemble an actual plane crashing there.

No, the problem is, once again, that you have zero ability to weigh evidence.

On one side we have your argument that the pictures of the wreckage at the pentagon don't show enough debris.

On the other hand we have dozens of reported eyewitness accounts of the plane as it headed to and ultimately struck the pentagon.
http://www.geocities.com/someg...ntknow33/witnesses.htm

In any normal person's view, what happened isn't really up for debate. Of course we've established truthers are by no means normal so this isn't surprising.

I also recall there being plenty of eye witnesses to explosions at WTC. What makes your eye witnesses more credible than the others? I can just as easily sweep aside your list of eye witnesses as irrelevant.

bullshit. There were ZERO eye witnesses of explosions at the WTC. Some people claimed to hear loud bangs which could have been oil tanks exploding. Not one person saw explosives or shaped charges or detonation wire.

You're going to "sweep aside" the accounts of dozens of people who saw the fucking plane hit the building?

Again, you can't weigh evidence.

Bull fucking shit. There were people in the basement of WTC who were injured by explosions before the planes even hit the towers. Just that fact that they didn't see some dynamite sticks with red wires duct-taped to the walls (as your simpleton assumption would suggest), does not in any way prove that there were no explosives in the building or that there were no eye witnesses. Let me remind you that in 1993 nobody saw your "explosives" either until a huge crater blew up under one of the towers.

Who put the explosives there? What type of explosives were used? Dynamite or thermite? You can't even keep that shit straight.

Why is there nearly 95% consensus among structural engineers from around the world that the planes and nothing else brought the towers down?

Who was injured prior to the towers coming down? There is no evidence, not even from seismographs, that there were ANY explosions prior to the planes hitting, but I guess those seismographs are also in on the conspiracy.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
You haven't made a case for anything . Next few years I will not enjoy but ya all deserve what your going to recieve. The day I die . You die.

:laugh:

Seriously, what the fuck?

Didn't you know? Nemesis1, along with all his other crazy ramblings, believes in the Mayan prophecy. In fact his forum name comes from a belief in some kind of dark star named Nemesis that is suposed to wipe out life the Earth in 2012. He actually believes in that crap.

You can't make that kind of crazy. It's born that way.

Now I see the light. The MAYANS perpetrated 911 and made it look like the government covered up their own plot to destroy 911 while framing a bunch of religious extremists. Of course!

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: munky

A plane recently crashed into a mountain, and there were much larger debris pieces, as seen here

Text

how fast was it going? what was the angle of impact?

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Watch this and tell me the man is liar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lci_eKWgcos

obviously it comes down to lying. not that he didn't know what he was looking at, was too far away to see anything, or any other reasonable explanation. no, he's either blown the lid off the whole thing or he's lying.

Well glad you brought it up. I wasa waiting for such a reply . Check out how fast a large plane can travel on the deck . Low altitude. Speed is a lie as reported as it goes against pyhsics .

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: munky
There were people in the basement of WTC who were injured by explosions before the planes even hit the towers.

1. who are these people?

2. you still don't address the dozens and dozens of unrelated people who are in reports as having seen a plane hit the pentagon. are they lying? did they see something other than what they see? Are they all in on the conspiracy? other than you ignoring them, what explains them?

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: munky

A plane recently crashed into a mountain, and there were much larger debris pieces, as seen here

Text

how fast was it going? what was the angle of impact?

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Watch this and tell me the man is liar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lci_eKWgcos

obviously it comes down to lying. not that he didn't know what he was looking at, was too far away to see anything, or any other reasonable explanation. no, he's either blown the lid off the whole thing or he's lying.

Well glad you brought it up. I wasa waiting for such a reply . Check out how fast a large plane can travel on the deck . Low altitude. Speed is a lie as reported as it goes against pyhsics .

http://www.boeing.com/commerci...7family/technical.html

Typical cruise speed of a 757 is mach .80. Mach .80 = 608.965641 mph. That's about 55 mph faster than the plane was traveling when it hit the Pentagon. Fail.

 

[Nemesis 1]

heres a video were witness seen something that didn't occur . like hitting ground first.LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFz7gLz7CVk

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Watch this and tell me the man is liar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lci_eKWgcos

Watch this and tell me if this looks like a man reciting a script, and if the woman interviewing him looks like she noticed him noticed him going off script when she went deer in headlights to the camara before it cuts away:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_z9sCeYZ54

Also watch the first take which was cut short 12 minutes erlier:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx13ilb0ZkQ

And then there is also a third take, which I don't know the time of, but seems to be after the other two:

http://www.dailymotion.com/vid...erview-later-on-9_news

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: munky
Bull fucking shit. There were people in the basement of WTC who were injured by explosions before the planes even hit the towers. Just the fact that they didn't see some dynamite sticks with red wires duct-taped to the walls (as your simpleton assumption would suggest), does not in any way prove that there were no explosives in the building or that there were no eye witnesses. Let me remind you that in 1993 nobody saw your "explosives" either until a huge crater blew up under one of the towers.

you mean this guy? (you may not want to click that link if you're in a an office that tracks surfing)

here's a rebuttal that's a bit more critical

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
heres a video were witness seen something that didn't occur . like hitting ground first.LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFz7gLz7CVk

The NIST doesn't believe the plane hit the ground, but it came awfully close. It hit a construction vehicle and clipped several lightposts before making impact.

The Boeing 757 approached the west wall of the Pentagon from
the southwest at approximately 780 ft/s.As it approached the Pen-
tagon site it was so low to the ground that it reportedly clipped an
antenna on a vehicle on an adjacent road and severed light posts.
When it was approximately 320 ft from the west wall of the build-
ing (0.42 second before impact), it was flying nearly level, only a
few feet above the ground (figures 3.2 and 3.13, the latter an aeri-
al photograph modified graphically to show the approaching air-
craft).The aircraft flew over the grassy area next to the Pentagon
until its right wing struck a piece of construction equipment that
was approximately 100 to 110 ft from the face of the building (0.10
second before impact (figure 3.14). At that time the aircraft had
rolled slightly to the left, its right wing elevated.After the plane had
traveled approximately another 75 ft, the left engine struck the
ground at nearly the same instant that the nose of the aircraft
struck the west wall of the Pentagon (figure 3.15). Impact of the
fuselage was at column line 14, at or slightly below the second-
floor slab.The left wing passed below the second-floor slab, and
the right wing crossed at a shallow angle from below the second-
floor slab to above the second-floor slab.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: munky
The problem is that the pictures from the pentagon don't show enough debris that would resemble an actual plane crashing there.

No, the problem is, once again, that you have zero ability to weigh evidence.

On one side we have your argument that the pictures of the wreckage at the pentagon don't show enough debris.

On the other hand we have dozens of reported eyewitness accounts of the plane as it headed to and ultimately struck the pentagon.
http://www.geocities.com/someg...ntknow33/witnesses.htm

In any normal person's view, what happened isn't really up for debate. Of course we've established truthers are by no means normal so this isn't surprising.

I also recall there being plenty of eye witnesses to explosions at WTC. What makes your eye witnesses more credible than the others? I can just as easily sweep aside your list of eye witnesses as irrelevant.

bullshit. There were ZERO eye witnesses of explosions at the WTC. Some people claimed to hear loud bangs which could have been oil tanks exploding. Not one person saw explosives or shaped charges or detonation wire.

You're going to "sweep aside" the accounts of dozens of people who saw the fucking plane hit the building?

Again, you can't weigh evidence.

Bull fucking shit. There were people in the basement of WTC who were injured by explosions before the planes even hit the towers. Just that fact that they didn't see some dynamite sticks with red wires duct-taped to the walls (as your simpleton assumption would suggest), does not in any way prove that there were no explosives in the building or that there were no eye witnesses. Let me remind you that in 1993 nobody saw your "explosives" either until a huge crater blew up under one of the towers.

Who put the explosives there? Why is there nearly 95% consensus among structural engineers from around the world that the planes and nothing else brought the towers down?

Who was injured prior to the towers coming down? There is no evidence, not even from seismographs, that there were ANY explosions prior to the planes hitting, but I guess those seismographs are also in on the conspiracy.

Maybe because the structural engineers never bothered investigating the incident beyond the scope of their hypothesis? Because they have a severe case of tunnel vision, and can't explain anything that wasn't in their computer simulation? Those structural engineers don't disprove the witness accounts either.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
You haven't made a case for anything . Next few years I will not enjoy but ya all deserve what your going to recieve. The day I die . You die.

:laugh:

Seriously, what the fuck?

Didn't you know? Nemesis1, along with all his other crazy ramblings, believes in the Mayan prophecy. In fact his forum name comes from a belief in some kind of dark star named Nemesis that is suposed to wipe out life the Earth in 2012. He actually believes in that crap.

You can't make that kind of crazy. It's born that way.

Wrong . In sig 4 possiabilities. You choose I am a witness for now thats all . I must warn of wrong teachings. The rest comes latter. You shall not like us 2 at all . Like the earth quake that arrives this coming year its going to be ugly for America Bad ugly . 1. it has begun.